Hi Rafael, and hello Debian Octave and Debian Science teams,
Thanks, Rafael, for raising the question of package ownership. I agree that
gmpfrxx_mkII is not Octave-specific. MPLAPACK is also a general-purpose
multiple-precision BLAS/LAPACK library, so it seems reasonable to ask whether
both dependency packages would fit under the Debian Science Team, with the
Debian Octave Group maintaining the Octave binding.
The dependency chain is:
gmpfrxx_mkII → MPLAPACK → octave-mplapack
I have prepared local Debian packaging for both dependencies. The
gmpfrxx_mkII
1.5.0 packaging passed its 154 CTest tests and an installed MPC log2 smoke
test. The MPLAPACK 3.0.1 packaging now has a local DEP-14/git-buildpackage
repository; source generation is reproducible, and the rebuilt packages pass
the installed MPFR/MPC backend smoke tests.
These packaging branches are local only; I have not assigned Salsa
repositories, set remotes, or pushed them. The octave-mplapack
Salsa repository
already exists, and I will maintain that package with the Debian
Octave Group.
Could the Debian Science Team advise whether it is willing to maintain or
sponsor these two dependency packages? If so, please point me to the
appropriate existing Salsa repositories or advise where new ones should be
created. It would also be helpful to confirm the intended Maintainer and
Uploader arrangements. The Debian Octave Group’s view on this division of
responsibilities would be welcome as well.
I am asking about packaging ownership and repository workflow before
proceeding with the planned PPA staging work; I am not proposing a Debian
archive upload at this point.
Best regards,
Maho
On Fri, Sep 25, 2026 at 12:40 AM Rafael Laboissière <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> * Maho NAKATA <[email protected]> [2026-09-24 21:24]:
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > From: Maho NAKATA <[email protected]>
> > Date: Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 12:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: Next steps for packaging octave-mplapack-interop
> > To: Rafael Laboissière <[email protected]>
> >
> >
> > As part of preparing its dependency stack, I have also packaged upstream
> > gmpfrxx_mkII 1.5.0 as gmpfrxx-mkii (1.5.0+ds-1). It provides the
> > development package needed to build MPLAPACK 3.0.1, which is in turn
> > required by octave-mplapack. I built and tested the package locally on
> > Ubuntu 26.04 with MPC 1.3.1: CTest passed 154/154 tests, and the
> > installed-package MPC log2 smoke test passed.
> >
> > The packaging currently exists in a local debian/latest branch at commit
> > 0dcc32e; it has no Salsa remote and I have not pushed it. My draft
> > currently names the Debian Octave Group as Maintainer, but I do not want
> > to assume that this package belongs in the team’s namespace or that this
> > is the preferred ownership arrangement.
> >
> > Would the Debian Octave Group like to maintain this package? If so, is
> > there already a Salsa repository for it, or should one be created—for
> > example, octave-team/gmpfrxx-mkii? Please also let me know whether the
> > same DEP-14/git-buildpackage conventions should be used and whether the
> > Maintainer field should remain the Debian Octave Group.
>
> I think that this package would belong to the Debian Science Team. I may be
> missing something, but it seems to me that this package is not
> Octave-specific, although it is required by octave-mplapack.
>
> What do the other members of the DOG think?
>
> Best,
>
> Rafael
