Hi, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > * There is broad consensus for versioned -dev packages (e.g. > Thomas Viehmann's precedent, Junichi's libpkg-guide), > particularly for this case where both the Debian alternatives > system and PETSC_DIR mechanism allow users to select between > multiple versions or multiple builds of the same version (LAM, > single precision or complex, -contrib linked vs parmetis and > hypre, -dec with HPaq alpha tools, etc.) Eh. I only said that versioned -dev packages seem tolerable to most people. In particular, I don't really like the idea of my name being mentioned so close to petsc's use of the alternative system. IMHO it's a genuine example of a very bad idea.
> * There is a very strong consistency argument for keeping > petsc-dev, cf. octave, python-dev, linux-image-2.6-xxx, though I don't really think that any of these packages have too much in common with petsc-dev - octave and linux-image-2.6-xxx aren't even -dev packages. Python and the notion of a default-python-version and it's implementation seems rather special to me, and TBH, I don't think anyone claims that the python dependency construction is without problems. Kind regards T. -- Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]