Re: petsc_2.3.0-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> * There is broad consensus for versioned -dev packages (e.g.
> Thomas Viehmann's precedent, Junichi's libpkg-guide),
> particularly for this case where both the Debian alternatives
> system and PETSC_DIR mechanism allow users to select between
> multiple versions or multiple builds of the same version (LAM,
> single precision or complex, -contrib linked vs parmetis and
> hypre, -dec with HPaq alpha tools, etc.)
Eh. I only said that versioned -dev packages seem tolerable to most
people. In particular, I don't really like the idea of my name being
mentioned so close to petsc's use of the alternative system. IMHO it's a
genuine example of a very bad idea.
> * There is a very strong consistency argument for keeping
> petsc-dev, cf. octave, python-dev, linux-image-2.6-xxx, though
I don't really think that any of these packages have too much in common
with petsc-dev - octave and linux-image-2.6-xxx aren't even -dev
packages. Python and the notion of a default-python-version and it's
implementation seems rather special to me, and TBH, I don't think anyone
claims that the python dependency construction is without problems.
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/