Hi Markus, Welcome on board! I have added you to the salsa group of the Debian Science Team. Feel free to push your projects there.
I did not have a deep look into the packaging, but have some notes: - Try to use the newer compat-version. 11 is a little bit outdated. - Please add autopkgtests for packages. - Try to add Gitlab-CI for every package. It definitely improves the package quality and makes the package maintenance easier. - Please consider reducing the number of source packages. Uploading/sponsoring 7 source packages, especially if some of them should go through NEW queue. It is pain. > - In the future we imight want to be able to install several versions.... I would recommend not to do it. At least in the official version of the Debian package. That just means that every new upload should have another binary name, NEW queue, sponsoring from DD etc. It can only have sense for very big and very popular packages like boost for example. But for small scientific packages it is just overhead. > Does the top-level directory in the tarballs need to have a special.... No. If you do "dpkg-source -x AAA.dsc" the top level directory will be overwritten. Just a general note. Make the simple things not too complicated. Otherwise the package will not work and is very difficult in maintenance. Best regards Anton Am Mi., 28. Apr. 2021 um 15:40 Uhr schrieb Markus Blatt <mar...@dr-blatt.de >: > Hi, > > I have recently posted an ITP (bug )for this software > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=987381 > > <begin citation bugreport> > > * Package name : opm-common, opm-material, opm-grid, opm-models, opm- > simulators, opm-upscaling > Version : 2021.04 > Upstream Author : OPM <o...@opm-project.org> > * URL : https://www.opm-project.org/ > * License : GPL2+/GPL3+ > Programming Lang: C++, Python > Description : Open Porous Media (OPM) software suite > . > The Open Porous Media (OPM) software suite provides libraries and > tools for modeling and simulation of porous media processes, especially > for simulating CO2 sequestration and improved and enhanced oil > recovery. > > <end citation bugreport> > > I am part of the OPM development team. We are prepared to maintain the > packages, but as nobody of us is a Debian developer, we would of course > need help for uploading. We have not done so, but intend to ask Ansgar > Burchardt whether he has time for this. > > I have an account on salsa and the current version of the packaging > effort can be found there. https://salsa.debian.org/blattms/opm-common > https://salsa.debian.org/blattms/opm-material > https://salsa.debian.org/blattms/opm-models > https://salsa.debian.org/blattms/opm-grid > https://salsa.debian.org/blattms/opm-simulators > https://salsa.debian.org/blattms/opm-upscaling To us as recreational > packagers this looks good now, but chances are that we have missed > stuff. > > I also requested being added to the Debian Science team on Salsa, but > that does not seem to have happened yet (or I missed it). Once that > happens I will gladly push to https://salsa.debian.org/science-team. > > Some notes on the packaging: > > - Packaging is based on the branch point (git commit) for the upcoming > 2021.04 release. Once that is released we will add the new version. > - We use git-buildpackage with the default layout and pristine-tar > (there is a debian/dbp.conf file that activate pristine-tar, and tells > it which files to strip from upstream) > - We have stripped some sources for the Debian packaging (jenkins, > travis, embedded source code, upstream packaging for Redhat, Debian, > OpenSuse) to satisfy the Debian Policy and prevent unnecessary changes > from appearing in the Repositories of the Debian packaging. Note that > these are also stripped from the tarballs and listed in > debian/copyright (Excluded-Files) and debian/gbp.conf for ease of > maintenance. > - Apart from opm-material and opm-models, which are header-only > libraries and missing lib<project>.deb because of this, most > repositories create Packages lib<project>-dev.deb, lib<project>.deb, > lib<project>-doc.deb and (for opm-common, opm-grid, opm-simulators) > lib<project>-bin.deb. There are also packages with python bindings: > python3-opm-common.deb, python3-opm-simulators.deb > - For the library packages the SONAME will change with each release, as > the ABI is quite unstable. The version is not part of the library > package name, which lintian would warn about. But we are overwriting > the warning currently. > - opm-upscaling is missing manpages for the binaries. This will be fixed > upstream and backported soon. > > Some questions: > > - In the future we imight want to be able to install several versions > of libopm-simulators-bin.deb concurrently (which would need to depend > on different versions of the library packages lib<project>.deb, and > probably install binaries into different versioned directories and use > update-alternatives. Is there a proposed policy/approach to do this? I > would assume that this needs to be prepared now by putting some kind > of versioning into the Debian packages for the libraries (e.g. like > Petsc). > - Does the top-level directory in the tarballs need to have a special > name (like opm-common-2021.04 for version 2021.04 of opm-common)? > The reason for asking is that upstream tags final versions as > release/<version>/final, which will make uuscan us funny looking > opm-common-release-2021.04-final. If it does upstream needs to use the > more common tagging scheme v<version>, or we need to create the > tarballs ourselves and use gbp import-orig <tarball>. > > Thanks a lot for your kind help. > > Cheers, > > Markus > > > -- > > Dr. Markus Blatt - HPC-Simulation-Software & Services > http://www.dr-blatt.de > Pedettistr. 38, 85072 Eichstätt, Germany, USt-Id: DE279960836 > Tel.: +49 (0) 160 97590858 > >
