On 18.03.2015 11:02 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 03/18/2015 12:10 AM, Mihai Moldovan wrote:
On 25.01.2015 05:43 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
[...]
I could probably have the Fedora x2goserver package provide x2goserver-extensions to help with such situations. Please do. For both Fedora and EPEL, if possible.
I just had to work around this in http://code.x2go.org/gitweb?p=x2gomatebindings.git;a=blobdiff;f=x2gomatebind...
Thank you very much in advance. [...] Sure, but why even have the x2goserver-extensions sub-package? It requires x2goserver and x2goserver requires it, so you can't install one without the other.
To be *perfectly honest*? I don't know, ask Mike#1.
To my understanding, it helps keeping components separated, and if we really must fix a specific component ONLY, we... could. Potentially. In theory. If the current world was completely different. Not in reality though, as we depend on x2goserver-version-release for each sub-component. This is also true for the DPKG versions.
Anyway, even though the logic behind this may be flawed because the packages really depend on each other in a circular fashion, it's somewhat "natural" to have a specific component package for each component.
We might (really) want to consider merging the packages for the 4.1.0.0 release, unless I miss some important bit of information. I don't want to do it for the old 4.0.1.x release line, unless we're going to have another LTS release based on that, as suggested by Mike#1. (Avoid flogging a dead horse and everything.)
Additionally, the same applies to x2goserver-xsession, which is currently also a separate package in Fedora and EPEL, but is depending on x2goserver and vice versa. *If* we do something like this, we do it *consistently*.
Hence, for consistency's sake, I'd prefer upstream and downstream to follow the same packaging layout.
Mihai