Hello, I removed the pkg-scicomp ML since discussions are now on the Debian Science mailing list.
Le jeudi 10 mars 2011 à 17:33 -0600, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso a écrit : > Notice I'm cross posting this to the Octave and Scientific Computing > Debian teams. > > Octave recently released 3.4, and decided to bundle ARPACK with it, > because it was unmaintained. I think a better solution would have been to fork the project and release it independently of Octave to benefit to the community and share the effort... > So what should be done with ARPACK? If it's really unmaintained, do we > want to keep the Debian package? Sure. Unmaintained does not mean bad quality ... Especially when you see the number of rdeps [1]. > If we do, should we rip out the > ARPACK code from the Octave sources and patch its build system for the > 3.4 Octave package? Yes. Libraries must not be bundled into the package and packaged independently. A good way would be to see which modifications of arpack have been done in their embedded sources and apply them to the arpack package. Sylvestre [1] Reverse Depends: feel++-apps (>= 0.90.0~svn6918-1) Reverse Depends: getdp (>= 2.0.0-1) Reverse Depends: getdp-sparskit (>= 2.1.0-1) Reverse Depends: libdolfin0 (>= 0.9.9-4) Reverse Depends: libelmersolver-6.0 (>= 5.5.0.svn.4499.dfsg-1) Reverse Depends: libelmersolver-6.1 (>= 5.5.0.svn.5100.dfsg-1) Reverse Depends: libfeel++1 (>= 0.90.0~svn6918-1) Reverse Depends: libigraph0 (>= 0.5.3-1) Reverse Depends: libslepc3.0.0 (>= 3.0.0-p7.dfsg-7.1) Reverse Depends: libslepc3.1 (>= 3.1-p5.dfsg-1) Reverse Depends: life-apps (>= 0.9.24-7) Reverse Depends: octave3.2 (>= 3.2.4-8) Reverse Depends: python-dolfin (>= 0.9.9-4) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
