plugins modules dependencies are not straightforward in the plugin manager

Do you have python-geoclue installed ? ( http://live.gnome.org/gtg/soc/python_geoclue )

What is the message in the plugin manager window ?

Luca F. > Do you think it is possible to package python-geoclue and put it on our PPA?

Problem was I hadn't python binding for geoclue, clutter and
libchamplain. I still don't have python binding for libchamplain because
it's not include in fedora so I can't be sure it is the only problem but
it seem like it is.

Perhaps the plugin manager's message is not explicit enougth. He tell
that clutter, geoclue and champlain are missing then it is the python
bindings that miss.

Le dimanche 06 décembre 2009 à 21:50 +0000, Lionel Dricot a écrit :
> Do you have python-geoclue installed ? (
> http://live.gnome.org/gtg/soc/python_geoclue )
>
> What is the message in the plugin manager window ?
>
>
> Luca F. > Do you think it is possible to package python-geoclue and put it on our PPA?
>

I agree that this is confusing : when the plugin manager speaks about a missing module, it's always about the python module (because gtg is in python).

But this should be more clear for the end-user. Maybe we could adopt the name of the Debian/Ubuntu corresponding module. Are they nearly the same in Fedora, Suse, Mandriva and other?

I don't believe that using the Debian/Ubuntu name it's a good idea. There are people on BSD and ARCH Linux using GTG, and I'm pretty sure that the name changes.
But, most important of all, either we hand-write in the config file the name of the corresponding module, or I don't see an easy way to get it in an automated fashion. Calling apt-file search? Not a good idea.
We could just write something else instead of "missing dependencies", like "missing python dependencies".

IIRC, Paulo was preparing python-geoclude package. I could eventually sponsor and upload it in Debian and Ubuntu when ready.

Fixed in rev. 453 : the message should be more clear now as it asks to install the required python modules.

(Disclaimer: I co-maintain GTG in Fedora)

Just for the record, I think this is a packaging issue in Fedora.

I had seen the issue and was planning on fixing it properly in the package by:
1. splitting the plugins into a subpackage
2. making the gtg-plugins package require the necessary Python modules
3. making sure those modules are properly packaged in Fedora
4. eventually, if that's worth it, splitting each plugin in its own subpackage, each one requiring its own Python dependencies

Like I said, I wanted to do that when I would find the time, and obviously discuss that with upstream GTG (i.e. you). I don't have the time right now, but I just found this bug report, so I guess this is a rather good place to open this discussion.

So what do you think? Does splitting the plugins from the core GTG make sense from a packaging perspective? Does splitting each plugin in its own subpackage make sense?

What's your take on this?

PS: I didn't want to reopen the bug as it's a slightly parallel issue and it's relative to a downstream distributor, should this bug be reopen? Should I open a new one?

I've opened a new bug to make things clearer.
Follow the discussion on bug 591747