Re: Packaging new upstream for sundials
James Tocknell <aragilar@gmail.com> writes:
> I looked at 2.7.0, there's another ABI break: it looks like Sls* symbols
> were moved to Sparse*. I've nearly finished cleaning up what I did, the
> main problem is the soversions, it looks like upstream is assuming
> soversion == release version.
OK. Thanks for running those tests.
> What's your plan on the organisation of the packages, my idea (which I
> haven't started on, I'm very open to opinions on this) was to have a
> package per DSO (which makes more sense if we add support for the other
> parallelisation method sundials now has), a libsundials-dev which has the
> things for each of the solvers, but not the serial/parallel/openmp stuff,
> and which depends on a separate
> libsundials-{serial/parallel/openmp/etc.}-dev?
I think this how it is laid out currently (in 2.5.0), except there's no
separate libsundials-dev. With the separate serial/parallel/openmp/...
business, we'd need the finer granularity, as you say. Fine with me.
I'm now using my 2.7.0 packages in the project I needed them for, so my
personal short-term need has been met. After stretch is out the door,
Let's get 2.7.0 into the archive. If you want to spearhead that and to
use your tree, that's fine with me. In any case, I'm not going to apply
much effort on this front until after the release.
dima
Reply to: