Phil, I don't mean to be a pill about this, but after seeing this thread stalled for several days, I feel we've reached an impasse. I'm not quite sure what changes you would like me to make to the packaging in order to get it out the door. If you would like me to combine all of the shared object packages into a netcdf_rt package or something similar, I would be happy to do so. I just need an answer one way or the other.
I would really like to get this package out the door and get started on my next one. I've got a limited amount of time available right now where I can make a big push towards new packages or package overhauls, but that time window is rapidly coming to a close. Thanks, Geoff On Dec 8, 2010, at 9:25 AM, Philip Brown wrote: > Sebastian, Maciej; > > As I understand it, you guys are okay with the debian concept of > "library splitting can be good, but not mandatory; grouping multiple > libraries into a (uniquely versioned) library package is okay". > > But you seem to have implemented gar checkpkg to be more pushy on the > user than that, as indicated by the forward, below. > > How about toning the messages down, to make it clear that grouping is okay? > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Geoff Davis <[email protected]> > Subject: [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libnetcdf6, libnetcdf_c++5, > libnetcdf(...) > To: Release Manager <[email protected] > > > >> You do have the option of having just a unified "libnetcdf" package if >> you would prefer. > > The libraries were split out at the suggestion of checkpkg based on > what I assume is the new library policy. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
