Hi,
On 05-10-15 11:30, Graham Inggs wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Nico and Felix are seeking guidance on whether to split the Trilinos
> binary packages so that each installs a single shared library or
> whether to lump them all together, as was done in the previous
> packaging (trilinos 10.4.0.dfsg-1,
Hi All
Nico and Felix are seeking guidance on whether to split the Trilinos
binary packages so that each installs a single shared library or
whether to lump them all together, as was done in the previous
packaging (trilinos 10.4.0.dfsg-1, RM'd 2012-05-15). Policy advises
"When in doubt, always
Nico Schlömer writes (Fwd: Trilinos: to split or not to split):
Downsides of this include the size of the package, and the fact that
the package name trilinos does not correspond with the library names
(libbelos.*, libml.*,...).
libml.*, really ?
I wonder if you need to prefix all
libml.*, really ?
I wonder if you need to prefix all of the library names :-/.
We're already considering prefixing them all with trilinos_.
--Nico
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Ian Jackson
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
Nico Schlömer writes (Fwd: Trilinos: to split
Nico Schlömer writes (Re: Fwd: Trilinos: to split or not to split):
libml.*, really ?
I wonder if you need to prefix all of the library names :-/.
We're already considering prefixing them all with trilinos_.
I guess it's probably a pain to do, but yes that would be good.
Thanks.
Ian
(Forward from debian-mentors.)
Opinion time!
I'm packaging a rather large software, Trilinos, a collection of
libraries (libbelos, libml, libaztecoo,...) for numerical
high-performance computing.
Upstream supports monolithic builds, i.e., the collection of libraries
is assumed to be fully
Hi Nico,
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014, Nico Schlömer wrote:
Which approach is better suited for Debian in your opinion?
I think this is in 90% the second option. Only in case that the
libraries used will probably never never never be used outside
the program itself, then it makes sense to keep it in one
7 matches
Mail list logo
