You seriously underestimate the contribution of Debian, even only considering the packaging of GSL. Providing pre-compiled binary packages and organizing them well is one of the merits offered by Linux distribution, which, I think, is a well known truth, right? Taking GSL for an example, it is not only a computation library for our daily scientific work, but also a supporting base for other open source projects (please just to find out how many packages are depending on libgsl0ldbl in Debian). We could not say the packaging of a particular software is silly or useless, just because it is easy to compile and build; It's unfair.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Rodney Sparapani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I think Debian's stance is a little silly. And, frankly, a > Debian package for GSL is a little silly too. For some packages, > like XEmacs, it makes sense to have a Debian (what the heck do the > call them, debs?). XEmacs can be complex to compile and it has alot > of requirements. But, GSL's requirements are minimal. Mostly, it > is having a working compiler. And, you need the compiler anyways > to actually use GSL for the most part, right? Therefore, it seems > like a waste of time to support Debian, especially, if they require > some overhead on the part of GSL to support their silly policy. > > $0.02, take it or leave it > > Rodney -- HZ _______________________________________________ Help-gsl mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gsl
