Re: RFR: fftw-3.0.1-1

["James R. Phillips" <antiskid56-cygwin at yahoo dot com>]

--- Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> The idea is to name the package (and library) so that you can add a new
> lib package if a new, API incompatible lib version is released.  If you're
> sure that won't happen, then you're done.  Otherwise, you will simplify
> your own maintanence work in the future.

Looking at the web site, it appears there is no active development of this
package going forward.  There is continuing research at MIT for faster
algorithms, but it has not produced any general purpose algorithm with a clear
advantage.

Looking back, though, if I should want to add a library for the version 2 api,
I would probably name the package fftw2.  This might produce confusion over
which package has the newer libs, fftw, or fftw2.  So, overall, it probably is
a good idea to change the name to fftw3.  I think I'll do that.

> Maybe you should split the fftw package into the fftw base package and
> the libfftw3 runtime library package which only contains the two DLLs?
> 

I don't see much advantage to having a base package.  If, for instance, I
package fftw2, it has its own separate documentation, which wouldn't be shared
with fftw3.  Debian has two separate doc packages for the separate libraries.

Jim Phillips