Christian Holm Christensen wrote: >The `pure' CINT binaries (cint, makecint) will disappear from the >root-system packages in the not-so-distant future (that is, as soon as I >get around to building new `experimental' packages of ROOT), since these >binaries are largely meaningless to the ROOT users.
OK, so it sounds like having a separate cint package makes sense. >The reason the ROOT packages have gone a while with out bug fixes are >many, but mainly [snip...] Sure, good to hear you are still interested. And congratulations on the daughter. >> I would be willing to help maintain this package. >Note, that there were some work done in the past on making a CINT >package set for Debian - by Richard Kreckel for his ginac package. >However, he has since abandoned CINT altogether and CINT has moved a lot Hmm. Ok. I'll drop him a line. >And to any die-hard avoid-duplicate-code-at-any-cost that might be >listening - yes, libroot-core does contain a library called libCint, and >no it is not compatible with the libcint of CINT, and no it cannot be >renamed. The reason is, that ROOT has some special code put into CINT >to make it work better with ROOT. So should both packages install these libraries as private (i.e. not in /usr/lib) to avoid conflicts? David -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
