Dirk Eddelbuettel writes: > > 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' ?
If you change the name of the library package (for example soname change) for another reason, then you don't need to append the ldbl to the pacakge name. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
