Re: New source and binary Debian packages for ROOT.
Hi Brett et al,
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 12:03 -0500, Brett Viren wrote:
> (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.
You do realise that the ABI has changed between GCC 3.3 and 3.4 right?
And that GCC 4 is much better than GCC 3 (at least for C++ :-)
> Christian, should you have the -dev packages depend on the correct
> version of g++? I don't know Debian policy well enough....
The `-dev' packages only indirectly depends on libstdc++. The run-time
packages _do_ depend on libstdc++. Exactly which version depends on the
version installed on the build system (hence, we've - Ricardo, Frederic,
Kevin, and I - used pbuilder for most packages to have the environment
as clean as possible). It's the debhelper programs that pulls in this
dependency so it should be alright.
> > 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!).
Sorry Brett. I'll clean up one of these days.
> 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.
That's the one that are `normally' in `binary-all'.
> > 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.
The dependencies for the binary packages (regardless of architecture)
are made by debhelper, and depends on the build environment (see comment
on pbuilder above). What is more tricky is the build dependencies
where version numbers sometimes has to be introduced. Then, one does
best by giving lower limits only (as the version number generally
increases :-).
> 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.
Well, for example `libroot-roofit5.09.01-3' (5.09.01-3) has a dependency
on `libstdc++6 (>= 4.0.2-4)', and `libroot-rootfit-dev' (5.09.01-3)
depends on exactly this package with exactly that version, so that
pretty much says it all.
The fix is probably more likely for the end user to use the right
compiler - e.g., doing `update-alternatives'.
> > 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.
I'd never dream of setting up a stable Debian machine, unless it was for
some sort of server or for a large number of students - and even then
I'd be partial to `testing' :-)
Yours,
--
___ | Christian Holm Christensen
|_| | -------------------------------------------------------------
| | Address: Sankt Hansgade 23, 1. th. Phone: (+45) 35 35 96 91
_| DK-2200 Copenhagen N Cell: (+45) 24 61 85 91
_| Denmark Office: (+45) 353 25 404
____| Email: cholm@nbi.dk Web: www.nbi.dk/~cholm
| |
Reply to: