[Pkg-octave-devel] Re: Forking glpk

[Rafael Laboissiere]

* John W. Eaton <jwe at bevo.che.wisc.edu> [2005-11-15 19:27]:

> On 15-Nov-2005, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> 
> | This will break horribly if the headers become out of sync with the
> | library. You absolutely need to provide matching headers.
> 
> Yes, of course.  So maybe a different solution is needed?

Falk is right.  In this case, the glpk-shlib package should be upgraded
only when the glpk package si upgraded.

> | I'm not really convinced. The problem is that you'll need a new
> | package name each time you upgrade, and this will leave lots of stale
> | library packages behind and generally be a hassle.
> 
> Why is it a hassle?  How often are new releases of glpk happening?
> Every few weeks?  Twice a year?  Does the ABI change with every
> release?

I also have the feeling that GLPK is not releasing that often.  Perhaps
the upstream authors will get soon illuminated and the next release will
have the shared library... :-)

> | If the goal is only
> | to provide a solution for octave, it would probably be easier to just
> | add a copy of glpk's source into the octave tarball and install it as
> | glpk-octave or something.
> 
> No.  I do not want to include external packages in Octave.  Doing that
> would definitely be a hassle.

In this case, I will go ahead with the glpk-shlib idea, as an interim
solution.  We ought to get octave2.9 into testing.

-- 
Rafael