Michel Salim wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Florian Festi
<ffesti(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> For those cases, 2 approaches exist:
>>
>> 1) let all packages which provide such a plugin own the directory, they
>> install a plugin/add-on to (This is the approach, which is being applied for
>> packaging perl-modules)
>>
>> This approach, however is only functional when all packages providing such
>> "plugins/add-ons" obey such a convention.
>>
>> 2) split out the plugin/add-on package into a separate package and let
>> this spit-out package depend on the "base-package".
> There is a third possible approach:
>
> Split out the plugin dir into a separate package and let
> plugin/add-on packages depend on it.
>
That is actually a very good idea.
I dislike this idea.
It leads to "one dir/file per package" packages and is functionally
equivalent 1).
That way, you can even script the
following query: "which functionality do I have plugins for?" by doing
rpm -qa \*-filesystem
or whichever common naming convention we settle on.