Re: [Freeipmi-devel] future one source tree package naming

[Albert Chu]

> I like this best.  Simplicity rules.  

> The library package should be split into runtime & devel.

But you just said simplicity rules?? :-)  Fewer packages the better?? 
That's my take, but I can understand why others want a devel.

> Of course I assume these are _package_ names, which don't necessarily
> have to correspond to subtrees.  At least on Debian they don't.

Yeah, package names.  I assume in the source we'd have

src/libfreeipmi
src/ipmipower
src/bmc-watchdog
src/fish

etc.

Al

--
Albert Chu
address@hidden
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Zimmerman <address@hidden>
Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 4:10 pm
Subject: Re: [Freeipmi-devel] future one source tree package naming

> 
> Albert> Jim just gave me a few suggestions.  How about:
> Albert> freeipmi - contains shared library libfreeipmi
> Albert> freeipmi-fish - contains fish, dependent on guile/guile-devel
> Albert> freeipmi-utils - ipmiping, rmcpping, ipmipower, bmc-watchdog
> 
> Albert> bmc-watchdog will simply not /sbin/chkconfig --add, it's the
> Albert> admin's responsibility.
> 
> I like this best.  Simplicity rules.  
> 
> The library package should be split into runtime & devel.
> 
> Of course I assume these are _package_ names, which don't necessarily
> have to correspond to subtrees.  At least on Debian they don't.
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Freeipmi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freeipmi-devel
>