Andreas, Thanks very much for your reply.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Andreas Tille <[email protected]> wrote: >> If so, I can report a problem registering an account, I have tried >> twice and both times after email verification I am greeted with this >> error message: >> >> "Exiting with error >> >> Could Not Get User" > > Hmmm, I'd naively say please try later again. If this does not help > you might need to contact alioth admins. Ok, I tried again and discovered it was automatically adding "-guest" to my username. Now I managed to verify the account, which has the word "-guest" appended, which is ok, I guess. > You might like to have a look at "Sponsering of Blends"[2]. I see, my first time encountering the Blends concept so I will read up. >> - public domain code from http://www.netlib.org, in particular >> "odepack"; is there any history of this code being packaged previously >> for Debian? I do not want to duplicate efforts, but would be willing >> to make packages for what we use. > > Not that I'm aware of. I only know that lapack is packaged. Ok so perhaps it would be a useful endeavour then. I'll look into making a few packages with our dependencies. I do notice that we have modified a few headers in those dependencies to make them include a common BLAS header for example, but I suppose such changes will make sense for Debian too. >> - numerics_bindings: this apparently has already been proposed for >> Debian in 2009 but was closed, perhaps out of lack of interest, would >> it be possible for it to be re-opened? https://bugs.debian.org/536270 > > Either reopen or create a new ITP. Both is fine. Ok, excellent, thank you. >> - two of our optional dependencies do have weird license situations: >> PATH has a strange license found at >> http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/%7Eferris/path/LICENSE and SOL/lumod seems to >> have no license at all: >> http://web.stanford.edu/group/SOL/software/lumod/ ; so the question >> is, should I remove these from our source release tarball using a >> patch? > > Since no license is per definition non-free you need to remove it in any > case. You might like to contact the authors of both projects to choose > a free license. I've done this with varying success in the Debian Med > team[3]. I think when writing to the authors a good start of your > e-mail would be: > > I'm writing you on behalf of the Debian Science team which is > a group of maintainers inside Debian with the objective to > package free software with relevance to scientific research for > official Debian. I will do so. >> 3) I would like to know what Debian Science thinks of the static >> linking or private library approach, vs. making dedicated packages for >> these collections of Fortran routines. > > To say it very shortly: Static libraries are sucking. Feel free > to ask for a longer explanation. No need, I understand. > Hope this helps Indeed, thanks for the links! regards, Steve
