Re: Sundials is way outdated
Hi Dima,
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 07:42:39PM -0800, Dima Kogan wrote:
> Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> writes:
>
> > So could anybody please, pretty please commit something that really
> > results in installable packages?
>
> I guess if you insist!
:-) thanks.
> I worked on this, and I claim the branch in master should build. Please
> look through the commits to make sure it all makes sense.
I stumbled upon
commit 26038269fc23ecf26abb85cd78fced63a3799a87
Author: Dima Kogan <dima@secretsauce.net>
Date: Fri Feb 10 19:26:13 2017 -0800
I don't build the static libraries
Usually we provide *.a files inside -dev packages. Do you have any
reason not do this?
The package builds for me but I get lintian errors:
E: libsundials-cvodes2: symbols-file-contains-current-version-with-debian-revision on symbol AddIdentity@Base and 326 others
E: libsundials-arkode1: symbols-file-contains-current-version-with-debian-revision on symbol ARKBBDPrecGetNumGfnEvals@Base and 290 others
E: libsundials-cvode2: symbols-file-contains-current-version-with-debian-revision on symbol AddIdentity@Base and 209 others
E: libsundials-kinsol2: symbols-file-contains-current-version-with-debian-revision on symbol AddIdentity@Base and 189 others
E: libsundials-idas1: symbols-file-contains-current-version-with-debian-revision on symbol AddIdentity@Base and 331 others
This either should be fixed or the symbols files can be dropped at all.
> The branch in master has the optional stuff disabled. There're a few
> more commits in the 'master_optional_stuff_enabled' branch that has some
> of the options turned on: the ones that are already in Debian.
What do you mean by "the ones that are already in Debian"? I think
if there is something in previous package versions we should keep
those features.
> I don't have enough experience here to know which should be on by
> default and which should not.
I personally tend to enable as many features as upstream provides
and considers stable - so I see no point to artificially drop
features (and if we drop any this should be documented with the
reasons for doing so).
> Furthermore, these packages don't think
> too much about how to migrate from earlier installs. I.e. the
> libsundials-serial-dev and libsundials-parallel-dev packages may not be
> doing the right thing. I haven't used these enough to know.
Any volunteer for testing this. For sure we should provide a proper
migration path.
> But with those caveats considered, it SHOULD build and work. Tell me if
> it doesn't.
Thanks so far. Any volunteer to join and test + enhance the packaging?
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: