FS#22090 - [links] Split the package into X-full and X-less parts

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Leonid Isaev (lisaev) - Monday, 13 December 2010, 23:00 GMT
Last edited by Eric Belanger (Snowman) - Monday, 03 January 2011, 04:47 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Packages: Testing
Status Closed
Assigned To Eric Belanger (Snowman)
Architecture All
Severity Medium
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

The package links in [testing] contains two binaries: links and xlinks. While I understand the rationale of including both in one package, I think there are some problems:
1. As it was stated on the ML, xlinks must be called with "-g"
2. In headless environments xlinks will be broken, since there is no libX11, etc.

Thus, the solution might be:
a. Replace xlinks with a wrapper, like:
---------------------------------------------------------
mv -v ${pkgdir}/usr/bin/xlinks ${pkgdir}/usr/bin/xlinks.0
cat >> ${pkgdir}/usr/bin/xlinks << "EOF"
#!/bin/bash
/usr/bin/xlinks.0 -g "$@"
EOF
---------------------------------------------------------
b. Split package into two parts.

Thanks.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Eric Belanger (Snowman)
Monday, 03 January 2011, 04:47 GMT
Reason for closing:  Won't implement
Additional comments about closing:  see my last comment
Comment by Eric Belanger (Snowman) - Monday, 13 December 2010, 23:42 GMT
1. Use an alias:
alias xlinks='xlinks -g'

2. Use the links binary. It doesn't depends on X or graphics libs. That's why the X and graphics depends are optional.
Comment by Leonid Isaev (lisaev) - Monday, 13 December 2010, 23:53 GMT
Sure, but I got an impression that binaries with broken ldd output should not exist on the system...
Comment by Eric Belanger (Snowman) - Tuesday, 14 December 2010, 02:00 GMT
They are allowed if the package has optional depends. Many plugins will have broken ldd unless you install the optional depends.
Comment by Leonid Isaev (lisaev) - Tuesday, 14 December 2010, 17:33 GMT
Ahh, I see -- fair enough. Sorry for the confusion... close as "won't implement"?

Loading...