ptlib plugins in one package

[Eugen Dedu]

Kilian Krause wrote:
> Eugen,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 11:58:15PM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
>> Eugen Dedu wrote:
>>> ptlib has 4 packages for plugins:
>>> - libpt2.6.3-plugins-alsa - PTLib audio plugin for the ALSA Interface
>>> - libpt2.6.3-plugins-oss - PTLib audio plugin for the OSS Interface
>>> - libpt2.6.3-plugins-v4l - Portable Tools Library video plugin for
>>> Video4Linux
>>> - libpt2.6.3-plugins-v4l2 - Portable Tools Library video plugin for
>>> Video4Linux v2
>>>
>>> These plugins have less than 100kB each one.  The hassle for the user to
>>> install the right package (for ex., there are users with v4l cameras and
>>> by default v4l2 is installed) is greater than saving 170kB on a machine.
>>>  I propose to put them in one package, libpt2.6.3-plugins.  What do you
>>> think?
>> v4l: libc6 (>= 2.1.3), libgcc1 (>= 1:4.1.1),
>>      libstdc++6 (>= 4.2.1), libpt2.6.3 (= 2.6.3-1)
>> v4l2: libc6 (>= 2.1.3), libgcc1 (>= 1:4.1.1),
>>      libstdc++6 (>= 4.2.1), libv4l-0 (>= 0.5.0), libpt2.6.3 (= 2.6.3-1)
>>
>> alsa: libasound2 (>> 1.0.18), libc6 (>= 2.1.3), libgcc1 (>= 1:4.1.1),
>>       libstdc++6 (>= 4.2.1), libpt2.6.3 (= 2.6.3-1)
>> oss: libc6 (>= 2.1.3), libgcc1 (>= 1:4.1.1), libstdc++6 (>= 4.2.1),
>>      libpt2.6.3 (= 2.6.3-1)
>>
>> So, it seems, that no extra dependencies will be added on the default
>> (v4l2/alsa) setups. I expect the v4l/oss users to be too few to actually
>> worth a package split, combined with the size criteria that you already
>> mentioned.
>>
>> I'd vote to go for it. Less packages to deal with :-)
>>
>> Don't forget to account for Provides and old Conflicts and also go over
>> the bug reports and reassign them.
> 
> actually they've been split for the AVC/DC plugins too. What do you intend
> to do with those once the code comes back upstream?

Put them inside too.  Each of them has less than 100kB (uncompressed).

-- 
Eugen