[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RE : Bug#679990: ITP: clipper -- object oriented development kit for crystallographic computing

Le 05/07/2012 00:33, Radostan Riedel a écrit :

> [...] And I don't wanna link these modules statically, waste disk space 
> and loose the c++ compatibility.

I was also wondering about the C++ interface. While static libraries
waste disk space, they could be provided in a -devel package without
having to commit to ABI compatibility (if I understand Policy 8.3 well).

On the other hand, with a real lib package, we would have to maintain
the SONAMEs. If, as I fear, upstream won't help with this task, and this
beeing C++, I'm afraid it could be a difficult task.

I asked Carlo Segre for his input, as he is a consumer of this C++

> About that control file: I'm still not sure how many python packages to build.
> Maybe I could get some suggestions here. Since cctbx consists of a lot of python
> modules for example smtbx, cctbx, mmtbx etc. which do not depend on each other,
> maybe it would be best to split that a little bit up. What is the logical choice
> here? Every module has a file called libtbx_config which describes what
> dependencies it has. 

Personnally, I always used cctbx in homegrown scripts (mostly sgtbx and
uctbx). For that kind of use, a big package is fine IMHO, as you don't
want to spend time cherry-picking the parts you need.


Reply to: