Anton Gladky <[email protected]> writes: > Just want to ask you not to forget Debian-Science packages. We have > now about 400 only source packages in the MAIN. And many of them > require attention.
I think that there is no danger in this: we (as astronomers) also use common science software - from plotting to math libraries. And at least I would try to ensure that the packages which are needed for astronomy are in a somehow good shape -- independently whether they are in debian-astro or debian-science or debian-python. However, I have the feeling that many science packages have a bad upstream development philosophy in common: they seem to tend to include oldish, abandoned libraries, sometimes even patch them for the own needs, not following the common SW development. It is hard for us the take these libraries back out and replace them by dependencies, and to continue maintaining these abandoned libraries. Grace is just the current example here, other science, also astronomy programs may follow with the same problem. But this is something only upstream can change (or the maintainer, and a cooperating upstream), and often one just cannot convince upstream at all -- even if other distributions will run into the same problem sooner or later. But this is independent of the science field, and independent of whether we run our own mailing list or blend. Any idea how to solve this? Best Ole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
