Re: libcholmod

2011-05-06 Thread Robert Isaac
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:00 PM, brian m. carlson wrote: > > My comment about multiarch was an extension of the previous paragraph. > If those extra development files (such as headers) end up in both > library packages, they may cause a file conflict. > I'm still not seeing it. The headers should

Re: libcholmod

2011-05-06 Thread dagecko
> So what happens if you have multiple library versions under Linux From > > Scratch, then? I'm genuinely curious. > > I still think separate -dev packages make compiling from source > unnecessarily > complicated, and benefit only a minority who already have a clue how > to deal > with the pr

Re: libcholmod

2011-05-06 Thread A J Stiles
On Thursday 05 May 2011, brian m. carlson wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 02:18:33PM -0400, Robert Isaac wrote: > > > It will also affect multiarch, where those two versions of a library > > > package may be for separate architectures. > > > > You'll have to explain how a library in lib32 could po

Re: libcholmod

2011-05-05 Thread brian m. carlson
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 02:18:33PM -0400, Robert Isaac wrote: > > It will also affect multiarch, where those two versions of a library > > package may be for separate architectures. > > > > You'll have to explain how a library in lib32 could possibly conflict > with a library in lib64 as long as l

Re: libcholmod

2011-05-05 Thread Robert Isaac
> It will also affect multiarch, where those two versions of a library > package may be for separate architectures. > You'll have to explain how a library in lib32 could possibly conflict with a library in lib64 as long as ld is doing its job correctly. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-

Re: libcholmod

2011-05-05 Thread brian m. carlson
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 04:12:13PM +0100, A J Stiles wrote: > Or even better, just put the "-dev" files in the main library package > already. > > The time when separate -dev packages were a good idea has been and > gone a long while since; nowadays, they are doing more harm than good. Putting de

Re: libcholmod

2011-05-03 Thread Lennart Sorensen
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 04:12:13PM +0100, A J Stiles wrote: > Or even better, just put the "-dev" files in the main library package already. > > The time when separate -dev packages were a good idea has been and gone a > long > while since; nowadays, they are doing more harm than good. Those of

Re: libcholmod

2011-05-03 Thread A J Stiles
On Tuesday 03 May 2011, dage...@free.fr wrote: > Thanks, that's it. > > How about creating a virtual package to help find the devel library ? Or even better, just put the "-dev" files in the main library package already. The time when separate -dev packages were a good idea has been and gone a lo

Re: libcholmod

2011-05-03 Thread dagecko
Thanks, that's it. How about creating a virtual package to help find the devel library ? - "cb" a écrit : > dage...@free.fr wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I had to install libcholmod for an INRIA program. > > However, the distribution doesn't provid

Re: libcholmod

2011-05-03 Thread cb
dage...@free.fr wrote: > Hi, > > I had to install libcholmod for an INRIA program. > However, the distribution doesn't provide any devel part of the library. > Hi, As far as I understand, libcholmod is part of the suitesparse package. While the libraries were splitted i

libcholmod

2011-05-03 Thread dagecko
Hi, I had to install libcholmod for an INRIA program. However, the distribution doesn't provide any devel part of the library. If it is not the good place to ask for it, please forgive me, and point me to the right place. Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64