Re: [Fedora-packaging] Unpackaged optional dependencies

[Spencer Jackson]

On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 06:19:18PM +0000, José Matos wrote:
>  On 01/08/2012 10:29 PM, Spencer Jackson wrote:
>  > Hi, I'm currently packaging a robotics simulator called Morse
>  > ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770740 ). Morse allows its
>  > simulations to be interacted with via multiple middleware protocols,
>  > including sockets, YARP, pocolibs, ROS, and a few others. Upstream has
>  > recommended that I extract support for these protocols into separate
>  > subpackages, which seems very reasonable. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem
>  > that we have packages for some of these middlewares.
>  >
>  > So, what is the best course of action? I wouldn't really object to
>  > writing up a few more packages for these most of these optional
>  > dependencies. However, packaging ROS might be... problematic
>  > ( http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/robotics/2011/000529.html ),
>  > and although an employee of their backer has indicated that he
>  > has some interest, I wouldn't be surprised if it took a while.
>  > I suppose one option would be to strip out the unsupported middleware,
>  > until some point in the future when there is support, then
>  > incrementally adding subpackages for each protocol.
>  >
>  > Any advice would be much appreciated.
>  >
>  > Spencer
>  
>  Citing Voltaire//http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire/
>  "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien."/
>  
>  The better is the enemy of the good.
>  
>  or in other variant translations
>  
>  The perfect is the enemy of the good.
>  The best is the enemy of the good.
>  
>  
>  Without knowing the complete details about those protocols I would say
>  that proceeding incrementally is a good strategy.
>  
>  -- 
>  José Matos
>  
>  --
>  packaging mailing list
>  packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging 
Alright, an incremental approach it is then! Thanks!

Spencer