[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Package split or package options?
* 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
Jonathan Perkin - Joyent, Inc. - www.joyent.com
Main Index |
Thread Index |