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

[Geoff Davis]

On Dec 7, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Philip Brown wrote:

> 
> I notice that the libnetcXXX files are relatively tiny.
> Does it really make sense to split them out?
> 
> You do have the option of having just a unified "libnetcdf" package if
> you would prefer.
> 
The libraries were split out at the suggestion of checkpkg based on what I assume is the new library policy. Additionally, I believe that my forthcoming GMT package only needs to link against the actual libraries rather than a full run-time package with all of the helper binaries. I know that our typical use case here at my day job doesn't make any use of those format conversion binaries, but GMT wants the libraries for who knows what and won't compile without them.

I'll tweak the package descriptions to make them a bit more readable as I agree that they're not particularly useful in their current state. Those descriptions were the automatically generated ones that checkpkg spit out, probably because it thinks that the end user isn't really going to see them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/pkgsubmissions/attachments/20101207/da659063/attachment.html>