[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: fftw advice...



On 10.07.2007 17:59, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:17:46AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> So, I was leaning toward following rpmforge's fftw/fftw3 naming scheme,
> Although naming fftw3 the newer version seems acceptable to me,
> especially if upstream breaks api now and then, naming the old version
> fftw seems wrong to me. [...]

>From looking at it at this point of time I tend to agree.

Normally I'd say that the latest version of "foo" should always be foo
as long as upstream calls it foo (IOW: fftw3 in this case is confusing
as upstream calls it fftw). If we ship foo (major-1) I'd expect we'd
call it compat-foo or foo(major-1) (e.f. fftw2 in this case). Calling
the older one simply foo (fftw) would IMHO be to confusing, as a lot of
people that simply want to install "foo" will expect the latest version
when they run "yum install foo".

CU
thl


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]