On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 15:05 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 09:29:11PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
Did you receive this email or any of this thread? It's now more than
two weeks old, and I'd really like to upload a new PETSc 2.3.0 ASAP.
So upload it? If you've
Joerg,
Did you receive this email or any of this thread? It's now more than
two weeks old, and I'd really like to upload a new PETSc 2.3.0 ASAP. If
you didn't see it, the discussion was on debian-release, archive at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2005/11/msg00107.html , then
Steve
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 09:29:11PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
Did you receive this email or any of this thread? It's now more than
two weeks old, and I'd really like to upload a new PETSc 2.3.0 ASAP.
So upload it? If you've replied to the REJECT message with appropriate
reasons why the
On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 17:50 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 06:57:36PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
Well, I think the factor there is that we usually want users to upgrade
to
the latest kernel automatically, whereas users of petsc usually can't
auto-upgrade to
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 00:22 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 10:53:57AM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
For that matter, why is it important that Debian provide support for
coinstallability with older packages that are, evidently, not
important
enough
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 06:57:36PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
Well, I think the factor there is that we usually want users to upgrade to
the latest kernel automatically, whereas users of petsc usually can't
auto-upgrade to the new API.
Okay, then what about octave, another empty
Hi,
Adam C Powell IV wrote:
* There is broad consensus for versioned -dev packages (e.g.
Thomas Viehmann's precedent, Junichi's libpkg-guide),
particularly for this case where both the Debian alternatives
system and PETSC_DIR mechanism allow users to select
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 10:53:57AM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
For that matter, why is it important that Debian provide support for
coinstallability with older packages that are, evidently, not important
enough themselves to be supported by Debian?
In contrast, libxml-dev has
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 01:46:04AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Steve Langasek]
python-dev provides an interface that packages can build-depend on
which gives them both /usr/bin/python, and a set of development tools
from the corresponding version of python. This is not analogous to
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 23:03 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 05:15:28PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 23:59 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
I understand that, and the whole proposal. And it will break a lot of
things for many of my users, who
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 23:59 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
[redirecting this to -devel; discussions of ftp team NEW queue policies are
off-topic for -release.]
Sorry, my mistake. I'm adding debian-beowulf because that's where some
of PETSc's users are.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 05:13:47PM
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 05:15:28PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 23:59 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
I understand that, and the whole proposal. And it will break a lot of
things for many of my users, who need to use old versions of the -dev
packages at the same
[Steve Langasek]
python-dev provides an interface that packages can build-depend on
which gives them both /usr/bin/python, and a set of development tools
from the corresponding version of python. This is not analogous to
petsc-dev, which only depends on the versioned -dev package.
The only
[redirecting this to -devel; discussions of ftp team NEW queue policies are
off-topic for -release.]
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 05:13:47PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
And thats what I asked for, yes. Drop the version from -dev|-dbg|-doc,
use the shlib system for the rest (which makes
14 matches
Mail list logo
