On 31 May 2016 at 12:48, Martin Packman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 25/05/2016, Michael Hudson-Doyle <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I've attempted to document the new world at
> Thank you for the clear write-up.
I'm glad it came across clearly!
> Is the thought that for instance all the -dev packages juju currently
> depends on should move to providing a shared library? I presume the
> current line we have over not splitting up the github.com/juju
> namespace into multiple packages till we expect to have multiple
> consumers remains.
Yes, that sounds right to me. TBH, I've not really thought super hard
about juju as it is still in this strange "some deps from source
package / some deps from archive" middle ground, but I assume that
some sanity will emerge here (or at least stability). There's no real
reason to make separate packages for the different github.com/juju
things until there is an actual reason.
PS: can we stop including jujud in the juju-2.0 binary packages yet?
ubuntu-devel mailing list
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel