Re: libcholmod
On Thursday 05 May 2011, brian m. carlson wrote: On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 02:18:33PM -0400, Robert Isaac wrote: It will also affect multiarch, where those two versions of a library package may be for separate architectures. You'll have to explain how a library in lib32 could possibly conflict with a library in lib64 as long as ld is doing its job correctly. My comment about multiarch was an extension of the previous paragraph. If those extra development files (such as headers) end up in both library packages, they may cause a file conflict. So what happens if you have multiple library versions under Linux From Scratch, then? I'm genuinely curious. I still think separate -dev packages make compiling from source unnecessarily complicated, and benefit only a minority who already have a clue how to deal with the problems that would be caused by including -dev files in the main packages. Even an APT option to always install -dev files would be an improvement (especially if it was on by default for n00b installs). -- AJS delta echo bravo six four at earthshod dot co dot uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201105060858.15139.de...@earthshod.co.uk
Re: libcholmod
So what happens if you have multiple library versions under Linux From Scratch, then? I'm genuinely curious. I still think separate -dev packages make compiling from source unnecessarily complicated, and benefit only a minority who already have a clue how to deal with the problems that would be caused by including -dev files in the main packages. Even an APT option to always install -dev files would be an improvement (especially if it was on by default for n00b installs). My interest was not to create a polemic. I was just wondering if there could have some easy ways to deal with some packages which names are hidden in other packages, by using some abstract packages or so. This will definately help in finding package names. This kind of technique could also be used to name packages differently, so that a single package could have several names (and so that users from other distributions could find more easily the package they are looking for, since package names could be quite different from a distro to another one). Maybe should I post this request to another debian list ? Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2102531523.253841304705732828.javamail.r...@zimbra20-e3.priv.proxad.net
Re: libcholmod
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:00 PM, brian m. carlson sand...@crustytoothpaste.net wrote: My comment about multiarch was an extension of the previous paragraph. If those extra development files (such as headers) end up in both library packages, they may cause a file conflict. I'm still not seeing it. The headers should be the same between architectures, unless there are differing versions between the architectures, like say libc 2.8 in lib32 and libc 2.14 in lib64. Even that bit of insanity could be solved by placing headers in renamed directories, which every build system worth using can work with. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/banlktincp6f9mc-pgutx8dndfg4xqxk...@mail.gmail.com
Re: libcholmod
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 04:12:13PM +0100, A J Stiles wrote: Or even better, just put the -dev files in the main library package already. The time when separate -dev packages were a good idea has been and gone a long while since; nowadays, they are doing more harm than good. Putting development files in the main library package will cause file conflicts when trying to install two different versions of a library. Berkeley DB is a good example of why this won't work. cURL is another (due to the differing crypto libraries). I'm sure you can come up with more. It will also affect multiarch, where those two versions of a library package may be for separate architectures. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: libcholmod
It will also affect multiarch, where those two versions of a library package may be for separate architectures. You'll have to explain how a library in lib32 could possibly conflict with a library in lib64 as long as ld is doing its job correctly. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/banlktincy8+oe+j8bijgewkenw43vsc...@mail.gmail.com
Re: libcholmod
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 02:18:33PM -0400, Robert Isaac wrote: It will also affect multiarch, where those two versions of a library package may be for separate architectures. You'll have to explain how a library in lib32 could possibly conflict with a library in lib64 as long as ld is doing its job correctly. My comment about multiarch was an extension of the previous paragraph. If those extra development files (such as headers) end up in both library packages, they may cause a file conflict. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
libcholmod
Hi, I had to install libcholmod for an INRIA program. However, the distribution doesn't provide any devel part of the library. If it is not the good place to ask for it, please forgive me, and point me to the right place. Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87984728.1979061304431204651.javamail.r...@zimbra20-e3.priv.proxad.net
Re: libcholmod
dage...@free.fr wrote: Hi, I had to install libcholmod for an INRIA program. However, the distribution doesn't provide any devel part of the library. Hi, As far as I understand, libcholmod is part of the suitesparse package. While the libraries were splitted in different packages, there seems to be only one developer package for all suitesparse libraries, which is called libsuitesparse-dev. Kind regards Clemens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4dc0116f.1090...@clemens-bergmann.de
Re: libcholmod
Thanks, that's it. How about creating a virtual package to help find the devel library ? - cb c...@clemens-bergmann.de a écrit : dage...@free.fr wrote: Hi, I had to install libcholmod for an INRIA program. However, the distribution doesn't provide any devel part of the library. Hi, As far as I understand, libcholmod is part of the suitesparse package. While the libraries were splitted in different packages, there seems to be only one developer package for all suitesparse libraries, which is called libsuitesparse-dev. Kind regards Clemens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4dc0116f.1090...@clemens-bergmann.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/996028643.2000441304434828731.javamail.r...@zimbra20-e3.priv.proxad.net
Re: libcholmod
On Tuesday 03 May 2011, dage...@free.fr wrote: Thanks, that's it. How about creating a virtual package to help find the devel library ? Or even better, just put the -dev files in the main library package already. The time when separate -dev packages were a good idea has been and gone a long while since; nowadays, they are doing more harm than good. -- AJS delta echo bravo six four at earthshod dot co dot uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201105031612.13853.de...@earthshod.co.uk
Re: libcholmod
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 04:12:13PM +0100, A J Stiles wrote: Or even better, just put the -dev files in the main library package already. The time when separate -dev packages were a good idea has been and gone a long while since; nowadays, they are doing more harm than good. Those of us making embedded devices would very much like to disagree. Also having the ability to install multiple versions of a library, but only one set of development headers has been a great feature in Debian for many years. So again, bad idea. The -dev packages are not about saving disk space at all. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110503151927.gc21...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca
