2014-03-23 17:37 GMT+01:00 Оlе Ѕtrеісhеr <[email protected]>:
> 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. > That is good to know. I completely share Fred`s opinion. 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? > Well, it is another complicated topic and it affects many packages in Debian. Best regards Anton
