Hi guys, The present discussion was precipitated by my submission of the zn_poly 0.9 spkg, which included some modifications to the makefile suggested by Tim, specifically the library versioning stuff.
I still don't totally understand what's going on, but the ensuing discussion has been very illuminating (thanks everyone!) I think from my point of view the crux of the matter is this exchange: On Sep 28, 2008, at 1:25 PM, mabshoff wrote: > On Sep 27, 8:50 am, Tim Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> But no binary Linux distribution can distribute the Sage >> dependencies unless they do proper library versioning. > > Sure, but that is not the problem I need to solve :) So, in other words, it's useful for the purposes of Debian packaging for me to do proper library versioning, at least as far as indicating when interfaces change. On the other hand, Michael doesn't think versioning is important for Sage, and he points out that the method suggested by Tim is GNU-specific, whereas I don't want zn_poly to be GNU-specific (as far as I can help it). But at the end of the day, as long as I provide the versioning information, both Sage and Debian can trivially patch the makefile to make it work how they want. I think I know enough about the Sage build system to be able to handle this myself for the spkg (with occasional guidance from mabshoff). So my question becomes: how do I provide versioning information in a non-GNU-specific way? I guess if I can do this then I can make everyone happy. david --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
