Re: Package split or package options?

[Jonathan Perkin <jperkin%joyent.com@localhost>]

* On 2013-12-04 at 17:02 GMT, Edgar Fuß wrote:

> 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 
> in Python).
> 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?

As a purveyor of a binary package distribution, I would always prefer
separate packages.  Users are going to have different needs, and it
sucks to force a lot of them to have to build from source.

Especially in the cases above where appear to be distinct sets of
functionality.

-- 
Jonathan Perkin  -  Joyent, Inc.  -  www.joyent.com