Re: New source and binary Debian packages for ROOT.
(debian specific response, roottalk dropped)
Hi Chris,
Chris Roat <chris.roat@gmail.com> writes:
> I am using something between sarge and etch, but sarge enough to
> default g++ to 3.3. Hence the confusion.
What /etc/apt/sources.list line are you using to access the
repository? If you want to have your development packages at
"stable", then you should use the "stable" root packages.
Christian, should you have the -dev packages depend on the correct
version of g++? I don't know Debian policy well enough....
> 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).
There isn't anything bad per se with this (other than wasting my
mirror's disk space!). What packages you actually get are determined
by the Packages file. In principle a package can be in both sarge and
etch, eg -doc or non-binary ones.
> 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.
I don't understand. Both sarge and etch are supported.
I'm guessing the root problem (no pun intended) is that you are using
the "unstable" sources.list line on a system that has its compiler
related packages at "stable". Adding a dependency on a version of g++
would catch this, but again, I don't know what Debian policy is here.
> This way, there is
> the greatest chance of getting the broadest user base.
Heh, that is making a huge assumption. All software devel platforms
around here are etch, if not sid. But, anyways, since both are
provided, it's moot.
Cheers,
-Brett.
Reply to: