Re: Fwd: Re: gfortran and netcdf transitions
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 10/08/2015 09:48, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 08/10/2015 10:42 AM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>> On 10-08-15 08:45, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure if it's wise to start the netcdf transition already, even
>> though I would prefer to transition to the new netcdf packages instead
>> of doing a v5 rename. A number of reverse dependencies cannot be built
>> in unstable because the libdap transition (#791114) hasn't started
>> yet, so libstdc++6 still breaks the current libdap version in unstable
>> on which gdal among others (build) depends, and so most GIS package
>> cannot be built because they (build) depend on gdal. This includes
>> gmt, ncl & vtk6 that are part of the netcdf transition.
>
> is there a reason to not start the libdap transition? it's already in
experimental.
>
I believe not: I think we should go with libdap now. Its awating an OK
from the RM team; if there is a problem its with gdal. I've tested a
libdap build with grads.
- --
Alastair McKinstry, <alastair@sceal.ie>, <mckinstry@debian.org>,
https://diaspora.sceal.ie/u/amckinstry
Software is like Poetry - most of it shouldn't have been written.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVyGY8AAoJEMvmu05dmtOlCV0QAIHKmF5bmkADzrt7+/Ohhu/B
HzUwfB9FhUdSgFgF2mTpFWfyl+3nHSgKG/NBP6V+gxBw/PRaWETbhPwnc9iynLsU
z923ojnyMotEYQgkZyGk5OizP9nzlvOcf4TM7CoWQddvviTwDrZCIZ9xzGd713tJ
0dKNlZhWKxu+bKFHBwDzET7a4z+2Lsh5Ia96vxelIq2yQVQuqDKPSo4w8QRjNTNa
VtPK6eciJDA8N7z0txF4nWbmawUYqlqKzDAvWSy8KoLF7Ts3rfx+o0Lok3fztiws
tIZtNKcQwS6ZPPw29JVJ2BV+Qpi9Ikn/DHaKqs9y/Zk9uktKptxzxnIAzuWVV0Ce
WAJPr9o1bnMF7KI7EoN6KotE9mCu4+aQ6zIEq1gSW6uKQ52rjb7hqoHWPTn98BRo
D8UZ1oPMbgq+zrJ7VLzjGNNTgttghObUhW743UCFcscNZtK/9z103P98KXs0uHUZ
l4qHxrfRpj+u9T1VR1pUv25IL3p7FbhRKl+noRE/wXtxBy5VBUoPKRqYQMWUnWLg
IVako+idT4POsi0ToBV/kBjdNNUwiKVz+cRy1DkhjF8lf/eS4QzskFytBC6dhvvP
tNBK6QZR53fERVM3dUu5G7P/X/Ci2aO8+jOBuqyyx05v3/4o/hOSyNk//q5uiezX
ynzplCsjA26Kvkxta016
=DyIM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: