This is the mail archive of the
gsl-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GSL project.
Re: GNU Scientific Library (GSL) 0.8 is released
- To: pfaffben at msu dot edu,gsl-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com
- Subject: Re: GNU Scientific Library (GSL) 0.8 is released
- From: "Dirk Eddelbuettel" <edd at debian dot org>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 11:54:37 -0500
> "Dirk Eddelbuettel" <edd@debian.org> writes:
>
> > > Dirk Eddelbuettel writes:
> > > > > * Packages for Debian GNU/Linux: libgsl0, libgsl0-dev, gsl-ref-psdoc
> > > >
> > > > Please add the actual links for these
> > > >
> > > > http://http.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/g/gsl/
> > > > http://http.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/g/gsl-ref-psdoc/
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ok, but shouldn't they install it using apt-get or dselect?
> >
> > Sure, that works as well, is generally speaking a lot easier and doesn't
> > require the links.
> >
> > But there are situations where you just want to grab just the .orig.tar.gz,
> > .dsc and .diff.gz to recompile them locally (e.g. when the build daemons
>
> That's what `apt-get source' is for.
Again, "sure in general" but you cut & deleted a relevant other part of my
previous prose: this doesn't cut the mustard if you follow an older release
(say, potato) and you deb-src points to that too. Also, I prefer not have
deb-src entries in sources.conf as this slows "apt-get update" down.
All these reasons are fine and valid, but could someone please tell me (in
private as this is getting way off-topic for the list) exactly what harm is
caused by adding these links?
--
According to the latest figures, 43% of all signatures are totally worthless.