Closed hugoh closed 2 years ago
The headless version is surprisingly popular! My preference would be to create a separate package for it - as you've realized, the WebKitGTK dependency pulls down like a full gigabyte of other packages when it gets installed (and if we got rid of it, onedriver would have no runtime dependencies at all!). The problem with making a new package is that Debian is really tough to package for - it's been awhile since I wrote the original Debian packaging stuff and I'm not sure how much work it would be to create a second package again.
In either case, I'm still a bit away from making another release, which is normally when I'd release the next version of the Debian packages. Let me think about what I want to do re: just bundling the headless version versus making a second package.
I'm with you on the difficulty of the Debian packaging. I initially wanted to do the right thing and create a second package, which may actually even be best with 3 (onedriver, onedriver-headless, and onedriver-common depending on how much shared stuff there is), but went the easy / lazy route instead.
My take is that it's best to do a completely separate package when you get to it. Once compiled, onedriver-headless is tiny, and as you point out, the full package is anything but light, so compiling by hand is an acceptable workaround in the meantime IMO.
I'm going to close this because the base build of onedriver
now has the "headless" functionality built in via the new --no-browser
option. So the same build works for both servers and desktops now.
Ideally, it should be in a different headless package without the WebKit dependency, but how about bundling the headless version in the Debian package?