* John W. Eaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-15 19:27]: > On 15-Nov-2005, Falk Hueffner wrote: > > | This will break horribly if the headers become out of sync with the > | library. You absolutely need to provide matching headers. > > Yes, of course. So maybe a different solution is needed?
Falk is right. In this case, the glpk-shlib package should be upgraded only when the glpk package si upgraded. > | I'm not really convinced. The problem is that you'll need a new > | package name each time you upgrade, and this will leave lots of stale > | library packages behind and generally be a hassle. > > Why is it a hassle? How often are new releases of glpk happening? > Every few weeks? Twice a year? Does the ABI change with every > release? I also have the feeling that GLPK is not releasing that often. Perhaps the upstream authors will get soon illuminated and the next release will have the shared library... :-) > | If the goal is only > | to provide a solution for octave, it would probably be easier to just > | add a copy of glpk's source into the octave tarball and install it as > | glpk-octave or something. > > No. I do not want to include external packages in Octave. Doing that > would definitely be a hassle. In this case, I will go ahead with the glpk-shlib idea, as an interim solution. We ought to get octave2.9 into testing. -- Rafael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
