On 23 June 2007 at 15:49, Matthias Klose wrote:
| Package: openmpi-dev
| Severity: serious
| User: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Usertags: goal-ldbl128
|
| Discussed in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/05/msg01173.html
|
| With glibc-2.5 and gcc-4.1.2 (and gcc-4.2), the 'long double'
| data type did change from a 64bit representation to a 128bit
| representation on alpha, powerpc, sparc, s390. To allow
| partial upgrades of packages, we will need to rename all
| packages holding libraries with the long double data type in
| their API. Both libc and libstdc++ do not need to be renamed,
| because they support both representations. We rename the library
| packages on all architectures to avoid name mismatches between
| architectures (you can avoid the renaming by supporting both
| datatype representations in the library as done in glibc and
| libstdc++, but unless a library is prepared for that, it does not
| seem to be worth the effort).
|
| It is suggested to rename a package libfoo1 to libfoo1ldbl;
| please wait with the renaming if the package depends on
| another library package which needs renaming.
|
| This package has been indentified as one with header files in
| /usr/include matching 'long *double'. Please close this bug report
| if it is a false positive, or rename the package accordingly.
Could do -- but we are also in major overhaul of openmpi-dev to a new major
release, new maintainer team, new everything. Should we just do this and
then file bugs on everything still depening on the old buggy/unmaintained
openmpi ? [ I am planning on releaseing the new openmpi this weekend. ] Or
do you prefer we add the ldbl to make it plain that this is a post-glibc-2.5
package ?
Dirk
--
Hell, there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something.
-- Thomas A. Edison
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
