On 2025/11/17 16:50, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2025/11/12 12:46, Peter Haag wrote:
> > On 12.11.2025 12:29, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > will take a look, probably in a day or two. I don't see any need to
> > > split off ft2nfdump (and at this point I think I'd merge nfprofile so
> > > it's all in one package).
> > 
> > The split off ft2nfdump was intended to have a small and clean nfdump package without any other dependancies.
> > 
> > I would not recommend to merge nfprofile. It's legacy and will get dropped anyway in future. Furthermore
> > you pull too many uneeded packages due to the rrd depedancies for the majority of users, which do not
> > need nfprofile at all.
> 
> flow-tools is pretty tiny as far as dependencies go.
> 
> With this update libnffile pulls in rrd dependencies now anyway
> so I don't see a point in _not_ merging nfprofile?
> 
> Generally we only split into subpackages when dependencies are
> heavier than either of these.
> 
> Re dropping - nfprofile is needed for NfSen isn't it?
> 

I committed a diff which merge things together and adds the required
conflict/pkgpath markers. (going the other direction and splitting
ft2nfdump off to a separate package we'd need conflict markers there,
and also a way to inform existing users how to update, e.g. in our
release notes etc...doesn't seem worth it to save installing a <1M
package).

Also compared to your diff,

- fix library dependencies for libnffile
- regenerate patches ('make update-patches')
- generate PLIST files with 'make plist' which maintains the
expected sort order