Re: Fwd: Trilinos: to split or not to split?

2015-10-05 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi, On 05-10-15 11:30, Graham Inggs wrote: > Hi All > > Nico and Felix are seeking guidance on whether to split the Trilinos > binary packages so that each installs a single shared library or > whether to lump them all together, as was done in the previous > packaging (trilinos 10.4.0.dfsg-1, RM'

Re: Fwd: Trilinos: to split or not to split

2014-04-16 Thread Ian Jackson
Nico Schlömer writes ("Re: Fwd: Trilinos: to split or not to split"): > > "libml.*", really ? > > I wonder if you need to prefix all of the library names :-/. > > We're already considering prefixing them all with "trilinos_". I guess i

Re: Fwd: Trilinos: to split or not to split

2014-04-16 Thread Nico Schlömer
> "libml.*", really ? > I wonder if you need to prefix all of the library names :-/. We're already considering prefixing them all with "trilinos_". --Nico On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: > Nico Schlömer writes ("Fwd: Trilinos: to split or not to split"): >> Downsides of thi

Re: Fwd: Trilinos: to split or not to split

2014-04-16 Thread Ian Jackson
Nico Schlömer writes ("Fwd: Trilinos: to split or not to split"): > Downsides of this include the size of the package, and the fact that > the package name "trilinos" does not correspond with the library names > (libbelos.*, libml.*,...). "libml.*", really ? I wonder if you need to prefix all of

Re: Fwd: Trilinos: to split or not to split

2014-04-14 Thread Norbert Preining
Hi Nico, On Mon, 14 Apr 2014, Nico Schlömer wrote: > Which approach is better suited for Debian in your opinion? I think this is in 90% the second option. Only in case that the libraries used will probably never never never be used outside the program itself, then it makes sense to keep it in one