On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Egon Willighagen >> This is why I mentioned earlier in this thread, and several times in >> the past, that it is important that BO tools get adopted by (Linux) >> distributions (I am not aware of such a Open Standard for packaging >> for MS-Windows)... packagers from projects that do have such a >> standard, know how to get your program X to follow one or more of the >> above sketched standards... >> > MPQC is not a BO tool (and nor are the other QM codes). It would presumably > be at least polite to approach the authors before attempting to do such > packaging.
MPQC is actually quite well covered in packaged land... Like several others mentioned, most Linux distributions have teams working on science software... The Debian/Ubuntu teams were already mentioned; this is what the Gentoo people do for chemistry: http://gentoo-portage.com/sci-chemistry > What are the ethics and legalities of doing things like this? I'd say that that is covered by the license already? > Clearly thisw could be valuable but there would presumably be testing and > otehr things required. As in unit testing? Or generally testing that the package works? Egon -- Post-doc @ Uppsala University Proteochemometrics / Bioclipse Group of Prof. Jarl Wikberg Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/ Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/ PubList: http://www.citeulike.org/user/egonw/tag/papers ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Blueobelisk-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blueobelisk-discuss
