[Pkg-crosswire-devel] libsword6 and libsword7 in peaceful coexistence... only if we separate out the utilities

[Jonathan Marsden]

Peter von Kaehne wrote:

>> OK, nice.  On that basis, I'd like to propose that we should:
>>
>> (a) create a new binary package called libsword-tools with the
>> module-developer tools in it;
>>
>> (b) move the installmgr and mkfastmod end-user tools into the diatheke
>> package.
>>
>> This would make libsword7 and libsword6 able to coexist, and it seems
>> like a pretty clean and logical way to split the tools up, to me.
>>
>> Any objections... or any alternative suggestions, from anyone?
>>

> This sounds right, only that I think that installmgr and mkfastmod have
> a wider application than diatheke.
> 
> E.g. swordweb - not ever packaged but slowly approaching the point where
> it might be useful to package it. would benefit from having mkfastmod
> and installmgr available, while not requiring diatheke.

OK; given that the diatheke binary package is tiny (/usr/bin/diatheke is
about 68Kbytes), any future swordweb package could conceivably just
Depends: or Recommends: diatheke so as to get access to those tools.
The overhead of thereby puling in the diatheke binary (and its manpage)
is pretty low.

Is that workable?  If not, can you propose a more appropriate way to
divide up the various binaries into packages?

Jonathan