Your message dated Mon, 28 Aug 2017 18:16:32 +0200
with message-id <1503936992.1818.9.ca...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: [Pkg-scicomp-devel] Bug#609832: libsundials-cvode1: CVODE
is 2.4 when 2.6 has been realeased
has caused the Debian Bug report #609832,
regarding libsundials-cvode1: CVODE is 2.4 when 2.6 has been realeased
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
609832: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=609832
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libsundials-cvode1
Version: 2.4.0-1
Severity: wishlist
CVODE 2.6 has been released, but packaging in Debian is 2.4
Would be nice to upgrade.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (900, 'testing'), (700, 'stable'), (500, 'stable'), (90,
'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_CH.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_CH.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Versions of packages libsundials-cvode1 depends on:
ii libc6 2.11.2-7 Embedded GNU C Library: Shared lib
libsundials-cvode1 recommends no packages.
libsundials-cvode1 suggests no packages.
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 23:04:42 +0100 Guillaume Yziquel
<guillaume.yziq...@citycable.ch> wrote:
> Le Saturday 15 Jan 2011 à 19:20:00 (+0100), Guillaume Yziquel a écrit :
> > Le Friday 14 Jan 2011 à 19:12:52 (+0100), Christophe Trophime a écrit :
> > >
> > > Is there a way to check this?
>
> The version of CVODE in the source package is indeed 2.6, according to
> CVODE's README.
>
> > > Shall we change the version of the sub-libraries in sundials package?
> >
> > If it is indeed CVODE 2.6, then it would seem to be a smart choice.
>
> So it would be less confusing to put the version number at 2.6, in my
> opinion.
It would be very complex to have Debian version numbers different for
each of the packages produced from the Sundials source. I don’t think
it is worth the effort. Let’s keep the Debian version number equal to
that of Sundials (which is a collection of libraries, much like
Suitesparse, which has a similar issue). Hence closing.
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ http://sebastien.villemot.name
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ http://www.debian.org
--- End Message ---
--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
