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

Re: package name changes in atlas-cpp (was Re: library renaming due to changed libstdc++ configuration)

Hi Ming, Steve, others,

I did the merge and rename of this library package, so I think I should answer 
as well:

On Tuesday 29 November 2005 11:03, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 10:09:00AM -0600, Ming Hua wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:28:05AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > >  * Rename and rebuild the libraries listed below. The new suffix for
> > >    these packages should be in any case "c2a" (instead of "c2"). No
> > >    new suffix is needed when the soname changes in a new upstream
> > >    upload.
> >
> > I noticed that atlas-cpp with renamed library packages has been
> > uploaded, and it renames the binary packages as follows:
> >     libatlas-cpp-0.6-0 => libatlas-cpp-0.6-0c2
> >     libatlas-cpp-0.6-0-dbg => libatlas-cpp-0.6-0c2-dbg
> >
> > I have two questions for this:
> >
> > 1. Should -dbg packages be renamed or not?
> I don't see any reason to rename the -dbg packages, generally.

For the first cxx transition during Breezy development, I renamed 
libatlas-cpp-0.5 to libatlas-cpp-0.5c2 because this was our plan. Every 
package without c102 (from old ABI changes) will get c2 and the other library 
packages with a c102 suffix, the c102 will be removed.

For Debian there was another decision, and it's in the responsibilty of the 
Debian package maintainer, if he wants to rename or not. (If I recall the 
mail correctly).

> > 2. Shouldn't the suffix be c2a in this case?
> Yes, it should.  If the package was being renamed because of an soname
> change, then there'd be no need for the c2a; but since the package is being
> renamed *only* because of the C++ ABI change, being consistent is important
> because there way be other packages in the wild named libatlas-cpp-0.6-0c2
> which *aren't* using the final mt allocator ABI.

For now, I renamed atlas-cpp-0.5.98-1 from Debian, the renaming of the Debian 
package was done in 0.5.98-2, so even with the new package I would rename it 
to c2a, to have a proof that it's compiled against the libstdc++ new 
allocator, actually this was M. Kloses plan if I understand him correctly for 



Attachment: pgpMWnSovgVB8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: