Re: Mpich 1/2/3
2013/5/28 Torquil Macdonald Sørensen <torquil@gmail.com>:
> Btw, your second point (regarding dh) is something we had planned. But even
> though the package has potential for improvement in several places, my
> personal plan was to not do everything at once, in order to prevent several
> problems appearing simulaneously. The name change in addition to inclusion
> of the NMU in the changelog was enough of a worry for me at the moment :-)
I usually use the same schema for "large" and "difficult" packages:
sequential upload
of changes instead of one upload, which breaks everything.
> But if someone more experienced could help I would be glad to work on more
> improvements simultaneously. Actually, I have been doing some work on moving
> it to dh locally, but thought I would delay it until after the change of
> name has gone through without too many problems.
Push even intermediate work into git (separate branch).
> Regarding the change of name, I don't really have a strong opinion on the
> matter. Replacing mpich2 with a good mpich3 package in Debian is my main
> goal right now.
I think Yvan's opinion is reasonable. It is better to follow
upstream's numbering.
Cheers,
Anton
Reply to: