From: Rafael L. <rla...@us...> - 2006-04-21 10:57:19
|
I am not going to comment in detail the posts in this thread, but rather make some remarks. First, in line with Geoffrey's reasoning, I also think that it is not a good idea to make a so important driver depend on C++ instead of being pure C. I would really prefer to have psttf depend on paps instead of LASi: http://paps.sourceforge.net/ However, rewriting psttf for paps means work and unless we find someone to do the work, we will have to stick to Andrew's effort (which, BTW, was a great move, thanks Andrew!). At any rate, I already packaged LASi for Debian two weeks ago: http://bugs.debian.org/361342 The package is still in the NEW queue waiting for ftp-admin approval: http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html As regards bundling LASi with PLplot: I find this, in general, a bad idea. However, since the library itself is not widely available, we are probably left with no other option. For Debian and its derivatives (like Ubuntu), at least, this will not be an issue. -- Rafael |