[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Bundling G-Wrap

From: Linas Vepstas
Subject: Re: Bundling G-Wrap
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 23:21:51 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.4i

On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:58:43PM +0200, Andreas Rottmann was heard to remark:
> I'm willing to change this.

Thanks, that would be really great!  My aplogies, I think its
better you hear the complaints before you start, not after.

> libgwrapguile-dev - Development package for libgwrapguile1
> libgwrapguile1 - g-wrap: Tool for exporting C libraries into Scheme 
> interpreters
> Packages of g-wrap 1.9.0 are in preparation (I'll take over Debian
> maintainership, too), 

That's great, I love debian maintainers!

> the main package of which will be named g-wrap
> (suprise, surprise).

That's fine; just make sure that users can still install libgwrapguile1
so that existing package dependencies dosn't get broken.

Having dual devel environments as well is, um, important:  The 
GnuCash developers will need to be able to continue patching & fixing
the g-wrap 1.3.4-based gnucash for some indefinite period of time
(I'm guessing over a year) even while we port over to a g-wrap 2.0;
so loading both devel environments on one machine is a kinda-gotta-have.

Again, this is the expression of the major-vs-minor version number 
tirade: Its OK if libfoo-1.4-dev clobbers the files in libfoo-1.2-dev
because its expected that libfoo-1.4-dev is backwards compat.  
However, libfoo2-dev *must* be installable in parallel with
libfoo-1.4-dev so that both are usable.  Again, the version numbering
problem is a technical problem, not a mater of taste or opinion.


pub  1024D/01045933 2001-02-01 Linas Vepstas (Labas!) <address@hidden>
PGP Key fingerprint = 8305 2521 6000 0B5E 8984  3F54 64A9 9A82 0104 5933

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]