On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 07:43:31PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > > > The solution is having upstream adopting a sane naming scheme for > > mpi-enabled > > flavor libraries instead of using always the same names for all. > > Francesco, please clarify: are you speaking of the hdf5 upstream or > the netcdf upstream? (Both?) >
I mean first of all hdf5 upstream. Note that anyway both them use different APIs for serial and parallel programming models. So having the same library names for completely different things IMHO is defective by design and confusing. As a principle we could install only mpi-enabled libraries (the serial model and API could be anyway used) but that would imply that people should coexist with such kind of stuff installed always, if used or not. Also some serial-only supports could be missed and anomalies appearing here and there: both them are quite complicated beasts. I would avoid to take such kind of decision without a deep analysis. > What problem are you trying to solve with that: co-installable -dev > packages or just coinstallable lib packages? > > > > Unfortunately they were still not available for that at the time of > > my last poking. Diverging from upstream is not a good idea, so we > > still have to live in a non perfect world... > > I think we can no longer live in the status quo (see all the blockers > of #631019), so something has to give. Even if it is painful, perhaps > Debian could pioneer something and pass patches back to upstream? > > Thoughts? > I'm afraid it is quite difficult having such kind of proposal accepted by upstreams. It implies changes for both them in library use, that they could be not ready to introduce. In 2009 I asked about that in hdf-forum without a positive answer. -- Francesco P. Lovergine _______________________________________________ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
