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

Re: fftw advice...



Stephen John Smoogen wrote:


> Isnt there something about dropping the compat naming scheme and going
> to something else? Or am I confused about a different email thread.

The guidelines were (will soon be?) updated to relax the rules, to leave
this more at the discretion of maintainers.

> The first question I would ask is what are your customers wanting?
> What packages need a Fast Fourier Transform and what do a majority of
> customers running on EL want it to be? If the scientific community is
> using lots of fftw2 versus fftw3 then that might be a good reason to
> keep to older name schemes.

dunno.  

Mostly, all I've heard is one *very* vocal rpmforge user.

>From scrounging upstream, fftw (3) clearly is the hear and now, fftw2 is all
legacy.

> The second question is what is the new packaging name scheme? If the
> name scheme is still compat-<package>-<major-minor> I would go with
> that.. if it isnt then I would go with something like: fftw_22 fftw_3x
> as the name schemes

match rpmforge: fftw (v2.x) and fftw3

> Third I would go for an open and documented reasoning document from
> both forge and you on why the names are different and how a user would
> be able to deal with this issue.

Easier to simply match, than to diverge + document I think.  

A bonus is that it's easier to change our minds later (ie, easier to migrate
fftw/fftw3 -> fftw2/fftw than the other way around).

-- Rex


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