Bug#533858: RFP: cint -- C/C++ interpreter
Christian Holm Christensen wrote:
>The `pure' CINT binaries (cint, makecint) will disappear from the
>root-system packages in the not-so-distant future (that is, as soon as I
>get around to building new `experimental' packages of ROOT), since these
>binaries are largely meaningless to the ROOT users.
OK, so it sounds like having a separate cint package makes sense.
>The reason the ROOT packages have gone a while with out bug fixes are
>many, but mainly
[snip...]
Sure, good to hear you are still interested. And congratulations on
the daughter.
>> I would be willing to help maintain this package.
>Note, that there were some work done in the past on making a CINT
>package set for Debian - by Richard Kreckel for his ginac package.
>However, he has since abandoned CINT altogether and CINT has moved a lot
Hmm. Ok. I'll drop him a line.
>And to any die-hard avoid-duplicate-code-at-any-cost that might be
>listening - yes, libroot-core does contain a library called libCint, and
>no it is not compatible with the libcint of CINT, and no it cannot be
>renamed. The reason is, that ROOT has some special code put into CINT
>to make it work better with ROOT.
So should both packages install these libraries as private
(i.e. not in /usr/lib) to avoid conflicts?
David
Reply to: