Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] octave2.1 and octave2.9 in unstable
On 15-Nov-2005, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
| So, you are suggesting that we effectively fork the glpk package for our own
| use. Your suggestion above is quite sensible, in particular because this
| new package will only be useful for Octave. I will take a look at this when
| time permits.
It would be best if we could avoid the fork. How can we convince the
maintainers of glpk that it would be best to generate shared
libraries? What are their objections? Just that it is still under
development? Hmm. Pretty much all software is under development, is
it not? I've never heard anyone say that shared librarires are only
for software that is no longer changing.
If the upstream author won't accept your patch, then wouldn't it be
best for the maintainer of the Debian package of glpk to apply it
rather than have two glpk packages for Debian?
If neither will apply the patch, I don't see that we have much choice
if we want to use glpk for Octave.
jwe
Reply to: