Re: [ITP] ploticus, libploticus, ploticus-common, ploticus-doc (revised)

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On Oct  3 00:50, Andrew Schulman wrote:
> > It seems that libploticus.a is simply a "convenience" library, intended
> > to make building ploticus.exe (aka 'pl') easier.  It does not appear
> > that the ploticus team really intended to furnish a publicly reusable 
> API.
> > 
> > In that case, it might just be better to not distribute the library or
> > the headers at all, but this decision would require further research.
> > Maybe the original poster could contact the ploticus development team
> > and ask their advice on packaging?
> 
> OK, sorry for the packaging problems.  It seems that I overlooked a few 
> things.
> 
> I think that the best thing to do right now would be just to withdraw the 
> libploticus package.  I think that the static library is usable, and that 
> it won't take long to identify and include the necessary header files.  
> But that will take some discussion with the ploticus author-- there's only 
> one-- and I'm trying to engage him on some other important design issues 
> right now.  I'd rather get those resolved first, then come back to 
> libploticus, solve the remaining problems, and reissue it as 
> libploticus-devel.
> 
> So what's the right way to do this?  Issue a package update for 
> libploticus, with a new setup.hint using category: _obsolete ?

I'm wonderng if in this caase just removing libploticus entirely is in
order.  There are no dependencies to libploticus and nothing to worry
about if the package just gets silently removed, isn't it?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.