Re: New source and binary Debian packages for ROOT.

[Chris Roat <chris.roat@gmail.com>]

On 1/25/06, Ricardo Yanez <Ricardo.Yanez@calel.org> wrote:
> > Chris Roat wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for the tips.  Using g++-3.4 solved the problems with the c++
> >> library, thanks.  I don't know why it was moved to 3.4 - is there
> >> anything in ROOT that needs it?
> >
> > Well, if you are using Sid or Etch, g++-4.0 (which is compatible with
> > 3.4) is the default C++ compiler.  If you are using Sarge, then I don't
> > know why the ROOT packages for it were compiled with g++ 3.4 --
> > you would have to ask someone else.  Christian or Ricardo?
> >
>
> In sarge, the metapackage gcc installs gcc 3.3. The packages I compiled (using
> Christian Holm's debian/) used that version of gcc/g++. I suppose they were put in
> the stable part of the repository(?).
>
> Ricardo
>

I am using something between sarge and etch, but sarge enough to
default g++ to 3.3. Hence the confusion.   FYI, the stable repository
seems to hold a mixture of 5.09.01-2 packages, while the unstable
respository seems to hold 5.09.01-3 packages.  (In both cases, there
is a mixture of older versions of deprecated packages).

IMHO, dependencies of the ROOT packages should be kept to sarge,
unless there is some code-critical reason to do otherwise - even if
the packages are kept in unstable repositories.  This way, there is
the greatest chance of getting the broadest user base.

This all said, the g++ mixup was only minor inconvenience.  The real
part of this thread is asking the appropriate way to link against
libMinuit if it is destined not to live in standard shared-library
land.  For now, I've just added soft-links by hand...

Cheers,
Chris