Matthias, (and CCing Brian upstream as a heads-up) On 23 June 2007 at 15:47, Matthias Klose wrote: | Package: libgsl0-dev | Severity: serious | User: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Usertags: goal-ldbl128 | | Discussed in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/05/msg01173.html | | With glibc-2.5 and gcc-4.1.2 (and gcc-4.2), the 'long double' | data type did change from a 64bit representation to a 128bit | representation on alpha, powerpc, sparc, s390. To allow | partial upgrades of packages, we will need to rename all | packages holding libraries with the long double data type in | their API. Both libc and libstdc++ do not need to be renamed, | because they support both representations. We rename the library | packages on all architectures to avoid name mismatches between | architectures (you can avoid the renaming by supporting both | datatype representations in the library as done in glibc and | libstdc++, but unless a library is prepared for that, it does not | seem to be worth the effort). | | It is suggested to rename a package libfoo1 to libfoo1ldbl; | please wait with the renaming if the package depends on | another library package which needs renaming. | | This package has been indentified as one with header files in | /usr/include matching 'long *double'. Please close this bug report | if it is a false positive, or rename the package accordingly.
That looks like something I should indeed do for libgsl, given that there are loads of packages depending on libgsl. Now, I am still calling this libgsl0 even though GSL long pass the 1.0 version. Should I switch at the same time, or simply avoid confusing at and just append the 'ldbl' ? Brian, Or is this something GSL catches in a way similat to glibc and libstdc++ ? Thanks, Dirk -- Hell, there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something. -- Thomas A. Edison -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]