On 23 June 2007 at 18:57, Andreas Barth wrote:
| * Dirk Eddelbuettel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070623 18:53]:
| >
| > On 23 June 2007 at 18:18, Andreas Barth wrote:
| > | * Dirk Eddelbuettel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070623 17:52]:
| > | > 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' ?
| > |
| > | If you do it compatible, there is no need to change name.
| >
| > Well now I am being confused about the 'do it compatible' part. Matthias'
| > inital mail didn't actually suggest anything but to rename. So I jump to a
| > new library name reflecting both the long-overdue post-1.0 of libgsl (which
| > didn't change its API so I didn't need it then) and the fact that this is a
| > post-glibc-2.5 build, then I should be fine yet be able to avoid the ugly
| > 'ldbl' suffix.
|
| The recommendation *is* to rename. Making it compatible is a hell of
| work which you have to do yourself - at least that's how I understand
| it.
All I was suggesting as to rename, but instead of
libgsl0 -> libgsl0ldbl
I'd do
libgsl0 -> libgsl1 implying ldbl
which may or may not be clear. Given that we're already confused in this
mail thread, the former default solution may be better. :)
Thanks for the follow-ups, 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]
