[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Package split or package options?
I'm asking myself wheter, in a particular case, it's preferable to use
options to selectively build components or use split into seperate packages?
I have imported nss-pam-ldapd. This thing consists of three parts: a daemon
(nslcd) and two clients, one for NSS and one for PAM (actually, there is a
fourth part, which appears to be an alterate version of the daemon written
Unfortunately, almost every combination of wanting a subset of the components
makes sense: you may want NSS, but not PAM; you may want o stick with
nss_ldap and replace pam-ldap with the nss-pam-ldapd client; you may even
want a client, but not the daemon: there's a OpenLDAP overlay (slapo-nssov)
speaking the same protocol, but built into the LDAP server.
So, should I use package options controlling which of the three (or four)
components gets built (less overhead, less likely to accidently install
a client, but no server) or split it into three packages plus a
nss-pam-ldapd/Makefile.common (better for binary packages)?
Same question for OpenLDAP's slapo-nssov: I've currently implemented it as
an openldap-server option---should I factor out a package?
Main Index |
Thread Index |