> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 13:03:02 +0100, Ana Guerrero wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:26:18PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:20:36 +0100, Ana Guerrero wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:37:31AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > > > do you have pointers/details about that ABI incompatibility? I'm > > > > > pretty > > > > > sure I looked through exported symbols and headers from hdf5 a year > > > > > ago, > > > > > and didn't see anything that would break when building against the > > > > > serial version and running against openmpi, but I may have missed > > > > > something. > > > > > > > > I didn't check further than the attached diff, there are mostly symbols > > > > being added in the openMPI version but also some symbols dissapearing. > > > > > > > OK. So you didn't get any runtime issues with this? > > > > > I haven't tried :) I only checked the symbols diff quickly as said. > > > Alright, closing.
Fine, I can fix my issues locally without too much pain, but other people could find the rename confusing as I did. Given that going to the back to the scheme used in Squeeze as I pointed: > > If you're fully sure we won't run in any runtime problems, then why > > hdf5 doesn't use the same scheme than in Squeeze? is *not* a solution at this stage. Could we have this bug as a wishlist asking to add documentantion about this? hdf5 needs another update for the bug pointed below and adding a README.Debian with this information won't hurt. > > The problem with the upgrades still stands. > > > What problem with the upgrades? #667599, #667526 Ana -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
