[csw-maintainers] [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs libnetcdf6, libnetcdf_c++5, libnetcdf(...)

[Sebastian Kayser]

* Geoff Davis <gadavis at opencsw.org> wrote:
> I don't mean to be a pill about this, but after seeing this thread
> stalled for several days, I feel we've reached an impasse. I'm not
> quite sure what changes you would like me to make to the packaging in
> order to get it out the door. If you would like me to combine all of
> the shared object packages into a netcdf_rt package or something
> similar, I would be happy to do so. I just need an answer one way or
> the other.

Sorry for the late reply on this topic. Phil, I am no Python juggler,
thus not actively hacking away at checkpkg. Haven't even yet seen the
specific output when it comes to the library split off suggestions. Will
will catch up on the exact output though - to see how it feels to me.
So much for the tools part of the discussion.

For the other part, the split off policy itself and its incentive, I
find Geoff's netcdf package to be a clear use case for separate library
packages. He is going to link another app to it right away. In case
netcdf bumps its SONAMEs there's no need to artifically inject the old
libs into a new netcdf package or rebuild dependent packages to link
against the new version. No hassle, less possible breakage and a soft
migration path. Can't be more obvious to me.

+1 For split off

Sebastian

[1] http://wiki.opencsw.org/checkpkg-error-tags#toc5