On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 09:34:20AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 20:10:17 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 03:01:12PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > > > I guess the best would be to reintroduce them but as part of a separate > > > libhdf5-cpp-7 binary package (the reason I dropped them was that they > > > were in libhdf5-7 but not in the mpi variants, which meant the mpi > > > variants didn't really "Provide" libhdf5-7). > > > > Maybe. However, there are already four variants of C bindings: > > serial, mpich2, openmpi, and default "mpi". Splitting C++ libraries > > would mean doubling this to 8. > > > > Why is that better than simply reactiving C++ (for all variants)? > > > First because having more than one shared lib per binary package is a > recipe for trouble down the road.
Not always. It's fine as long as they all increment SONAME together. I don't know if that's the case here, but if it is, I'd say the benefit of splitting is outweighed by the nuisance of increasing package count. > Second, the c++ libs were only built > with the serial libhdf5 variant, not with any of the mpi ones; Yes, that's why I specified to produce C++ libs "for all variants". > I don't know why, and am not familiar enough with hdf5 to know if > that makes any difference. I don't know why either, but I do know that it makes a difference. Regards, -Steve
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkgemail@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel