Le 05/07/2012 00:33, Radostan Riedel a écrit : > [...] And I don't wanna link these modules statically, waste disk space > and loose the c++ compatibility.
I was also wondering about the C++ interface. While static libraries waste disk space, they could be provided in a -devel package without having to commit to ABI compatibility (if I understand Policy 8.3 well). On the other hand, with a real lib package, we would have to maintain the SONAMEs. If, as I fear, upstream won't help with this task, and this beeing C++, I'm afraid it could be a difficult task. I asked Carlo Segre for his input, as he is a consumer of this C++ interface. > About that control file: I'm still not sure how many python packages to build. > Maybe I could get some suggestions here. Since cctbx consists of a lot of > python > modules for example smtbx, cctbx, mmtbx etc. which do not depend on each > other, > maybe it would be best to split that a little bit up. What is the logical > choice > here? Every module has a file called libtbx_config which describes what > dependencies it has. Personnally, I always used cctbx in homegrown scripts (mostly sgtbx and uctbx). For that kind of use, a big package is fine IMHO, as you don't want to spend time cherry-picking the parts you need. Cheers, Baptiste -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
