Your message dated Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:09:10 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#430269: ldbl128 transition for alpha, powerpc, sparc, s390
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: liblpsolve55-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.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
Matthias Klose wrote:
> because they support both representations. We rename the library
> packages on all architectures to avoid name mismatches between
there's no library package here (and you filed it against the -dev
package anyway)
> 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.
See above.
The only trace of a shared lib is liblpsolve55.so is in lp-solve package
(which has no SONAME at all and needs an RPATH. Nothing uses it in <=
sid).
> 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'll do that, I think it's not sensible to change the lp-solve package
to lp-solveldbl128 and splitting the library out is not possible really...
Grüße/Regards,
René
--
.''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
: :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
`. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
`- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
