so what happened to this wonderful idea?
I could only find this wiki page
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianScience/UnofficialRepository
did you give up?
Hope to hear from you,
Emme
On 7/19/06, Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear list,
Currently there are a fair number of
muzzle wrote:
so what happened to this wonderful idea?
I could only find this wiki page
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianScience/UnofficialRepository
did you give up?
Hope to hear from you,
Emme
Well, as far as I know the thread sort of died inconclusively.
I personally don't have
Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I personally don't have anywhere to host such a repository. (My
post-doc is up in April so I will probably lose the use of the machine
currently hosting my Geant4 .debs.) Not to put words in his mouth, but
I understand that Brett Viren has space,
Brett Viren wrote:
Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I personally don't have anywhere to host such a repository. (My
post-doc is up in April so I will probably lose the use of the machine
currently hosting my Geant4 .debs.) Not to put words in his mouth, but
I understand that
Alexander L. Belikoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am a lurker on this list, so please don't hit on me too hard for a
possibly naiive question. I assume, this standalone repository is
supposed to be a stopgap for packages before entering Debian official
repository (and ultimately becoming part
Thomas Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way, what is the license status of 'contrib'? Is it: not
'non-free' and not 'free' in the debian spirit. So where in this 3-way
free _per se_, but tied down by a dependency (at build time or
runtime) on non-free software. Many Java packages that
Am Sonntag, 23. Juli 2006 22:49 schrieb Thomas Walter:
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 06:38, Luca Ingianni wrote:
Am Freitag, 21. Juli 2006 00:03 schrieb Thomas Walter:
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 13:53, Daniel Leidert wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 19.07.2006, 13:03 -0400 schrieb Kevin B. McCarty:
I have
Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Dear list,
Currently there are a fair number of repositories of science-related
unofficial Debian packages out there. I've been thinking that it might
make sense to consolidate them into a single site. This would have
several advantages:
- Permit convenient
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 01:32, Daniel Leidert wrote:
Am Freitag, den 21.07.2006, 00:03 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 13:53, Daniel Leidert wrote:
[directory/section structure proposal - freedom vs research field]
I really vote for using the main/contrib/non-free section
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 06:38, Luca Ingianni wrote:
Am Freitag, 21. Juli 2006 00:03 schrieb Thomas Walter:
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 13:53, Daniel Leidert wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 19.07.2006, 13:03 -0400 schrieb Kevin B. McCarty:
I really vote for using the main/contrib/non-free section model.
Am Sonntag, den 23.07.2006, 22:35 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 01:32, Daniel Leidert wrote:
Am Freitag, den 21.07.2006, 00:03 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 13:53, Daniel Leidert wrote:
[directory/section structure proposal - freedom vs research
Am Mittwoch, den 19.07.2006, 18:36 +0200 schrieb Frederic Lehobey:
[..]
I was talking to Brett Viren about the possibility to host CLHEP and
GEANT4 .debs at his site, maintaining a repository for unofficial
physics related packages. So the question is, would other Debian
Scientists, in
Am Mittwoch, den 19.07.2006, 20:20 +0200 schrieb Michael Hanke:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 12:07:40PM -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Dear list,
Currently there are a fair number of repositories of science-related
unofficial Debian packages out there. I've been thinking that it might
make
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
Ah, I mixed that up with non-US where you had to use a separate upload
queue. non-free is mentioned in the control file, so it should be fine.
I started the build on m68k and it hasn't failed yet, with a little luck it
will be ready tomorrow.
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Daniel Leidert wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 19.07.2006, 20:20 +0200 schrieb Michael Hanke:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 12:07:40PM -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Dear list,
Currently there are a fair number of repositories of science-related
unofficial Debian packages out there.
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 08:56:34AM -0500, Carlo Segre wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
I saw that the m68k package went in this morning. Thanks! Now a
question. How did you upload the ported package? I tried yesterday with
a mips package but I have not received
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Have been buzy the last few days and come back to see great activity on
this list!
As Frederic reported, we were already discussing such a repository at
last Libre Software Meeting (4-8 july).Good o see people here seems to
enjoy such an idea.
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
Do you still have the changes file around? If your email does not appear in
the changelog, I think in the Maintainer field, you will never receive a
confirmation. The buildd scripts change that field so that the buildd
maintainer receives the
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 13:53, Daniel Leidert wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 19.07.2006, 13:03 -0400 schrieb Kevin B. McCarty:
[..]
That reminds me of another question I had. Maybe it's too early to
bring up but I'll ask it anyway.
What would be the best way to organize the archive by
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 12:03:42AM +0200, Thomas Walter wrote:
As a conclusion, separating science applications into
main/contrib/non-free does not make much sense in these cases. As
scientist I can put the most into main.
It's still non-free and not main. Main is for Free Software, and Free
Am Freitag, den 21.07.2006, 00:03 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 13:53, Daniel Leidert wrote:
[directory/section structure proposal - freedom vs research field]
I really vote for using the main/contrib/non-free section model. This
would also help to see, which packages
Le Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 12:03:42AM +0200, Thomas Walter a écrit :
Often applications have
exceptions for non-commercial use or usage for research tasks. The
latter is easily proven when working for an institute or university.
As a conclusion, separating science applications into
Am Freitag, 21. Juli 2006 00:03 schrieb Thomas Walter:
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 13:53, Daniel Leidert wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 19.07.2006, 13:03 -0400 schrieb Kevin B. McCarty:
I really vote for using the main/contrib/non-free section model. This
would also help to see, which packages might be
Dear list,
Currently there are a fair number of repositories of science-related
unofficial Debian packages out there. I've been thinking that it might
make sense to consolidate them into a single site. This would have
several advantages:
- Permit convenient one-stop shopping for unofficial
Deaer Kevin:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Dear list,
I was talking to Brett Viren about the possibility to host CLHEP and
GEANT4 .debs at his site, maintaining a repository for unofficial
physics related packages. So the question is, would other Debian
Scientists, in fields
Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Dear list,
Currently there are a fair number of repositories of science-related
unofficial Debian packages out there. I've been thinking that it might
make sense to consolidate them into a single site. This would have
several advantages:
- Permit convenient
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Jordan Mantha wrote:
I would hope that it would also foster collaborative maintenance of the
packages too. Having a single source for source packages as well as the
binaries would be great. Maybe even some svn repos for maintaining the
packaging. On that thought, would
On 7/19/06, Frederic Lehobey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
In short: much.
We have discussed exactly the same idea at the `science' session of
LSM/RMLL (http://www.rmll.info/theme_26) with people already on this
list. So let's join our forces.
Excellent!
I can't find any slides at that
On 7/19/06, Carlo Segre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Jordan Mantha wrote:
I would hope that it would also foster collaborative maintenance of the
packages too. Having a single source for source packages as well as the
binaries would be great. Maybe even some svn repos for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Carlo Segre wrote:
I am certainly interested and could contribute some resources perhaps,
including machines with mips, sparc, powerpc and m68k architectures for
building. While I am a physicist, my research is more in materials
science.
I am
On 7/20/06, Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear list,
Currently there are a fair number of repositories of science-related
unofficial Debian packages out there. I've been thinking that it might
make sense to consolidate them into a single site. This would have
several advantages:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 12:07:40PM -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Dear list,
Currently there are a fair number of repositories of science-related
unofficial Debian packages out there. I've been thinking that it might
make sense to consolidate them into a single site. This would have
Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Dear list,
Currently there are a fair number of repositories of science-related
unofficial Debian packages out there. I've been thinking that it might
make sense to consolidate them into a single site. This would have
several advantages:
- Permit convenient one-stop
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006, Russell Shaw wrote:
An easier way might be just to make a web page that has all the
necessary sources.list lines for all the known repositories, so
the user can just paste them into their sources.list and apt-get update.
If the page was a wiki, newly found repositories
Michael Hanke wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 12:07:40PM -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Dear list,
Currently there are a fair number of repositories of science-related
unofficial Debian packages out there. I've been thinking that it might
make sense to consolidate them into a single site.
Good morning
Do you know http://www.debian-unofficial.org ?
I think that's exactly what you're searching.
From the website:
0. Introduction
You have switched from ${another} GNU/Linux distribution to Debian GNU/Linux.
It runs great, there is just one problem: you are missing some software
Mario Fux wrote:
Do you know http://www.debian-unofficial.org ?
I think that's exactly what you're searching.
Not really. Because:
Debian Unofficial should be *only* a repository for three types of
packages, which:
1. do violating allegedly software-patents
2. requires a contract with the
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Daniel Baumann wrote:
I see no reason to not upload any dfsg-compliant package, whetever it is
science related or not, to Debian directly. If the package is upstream
buggy, then it should be uploaded to experimental, rather than an
unofficial repository.
If you're lacking
Carlo Segre wrote:
The biggest problem with non-free packages, which many science-related
pacakges would fall into, is that there is no automatic buildd system
for them.
hm?
I'm not sure if I did understand you right - are you saying that Debians
non-free suite has no autobuilders (which is
On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 19:03, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
On 7/19/06, Carlo Segre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Jordan Mantha wrote:
I would hope that it would also foster collaborative maintenance of the
packages too. Having a single source for source packages as well as the
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Daniel Baumann wrote:
Carlo Segre wrote:
The biggest problem with non-free packages, which many science-related
pacakges would fall into, is that there is no automatic buildd system
for them.
hm?
I'm not sure if I did understand you right - are you saying that Debians
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 03:12:33PM -0500, Carlo Segre wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Daniel Baumann wrote:
I see no reason to not upload any dfsg-compliant package, whetever it is
science related or not, to Debian directly. If the package is upstream
buggy, then it should be uploaded to
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 03:12:33PM -0500, Carlo Segre wrote:
The biggest problem with non-free packages, which many science-related
pacakges would fall into, is that there is no automatic buildd system for
them. I have been trying to get
So, it seems there is much call for a debian-science unofficial
repository. Great!
A few things in response:
1) Distribution types. I think it is best to keep the standard
main/non-free/contrib splitting. This splitting was invented to make
clear the free-ness of the code and not the types of
44 matches
Mail list logo
