[Compcomm] Releases and packaging. And stuff.

[Diogo Ferreira]

On 5/10/07, RYX <ryx at ryxperience.com> wrote:
>
> How about having individual packages for each plugin and using
> metapackages for user-friendly installation of special
> groups/selections? An automated build-system could do that the same way
> as it would create few packages from all plugins.
>
> As far as I can say there are many people who prefer being able to
> install plugins separately. Maybe it is ok for developers to group them
> in good/bad/ugly but for the average user this is highly confusing.
>
> There could still be good/bad/ugly metapackages which then install only
> a small selection of the available plugins. This is the way many other
> "modularized" applications handle it.
>
> (Just a thought - feel free to ignore me ;) ...)
>
> Rico
>
> _______________________________________________
> CompComm mailing list
> CompComm at Rock3d.org
> http://www.ubaight.com/mailman/listinfo/compcom


Even if it sounds like a good idea as the number of plugins increases this
becomes hell for packagers and it's really hard to maintain.
My suggestion is that plugins are grouped according to the functionality
they provide, such as accessiblity, effects, etc. Then -good, -bad and -ugly
can install sets of these. Plugins which have strange dependencies should be
packaged separately, such as fuse, gtk and others to avoid pulling
dependencies when they aren't needed.

Diogo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.RiverGorgeSolutions.net/pipermail/compcomm/attachments/20070510/a1a8fa39/attachment-0002.htm>