Subject: Re: Next steps for packaging octave-mplapack-interop Hi all,
Following up on my message of 25 September. Rafael suggested the Debian Science Team as the home for gmpfrxx-mkii, and no one has objected, so I plan to proceed as follows, following the Debian Science policy: - Request membership in the science-team group on Salsa. - Create science-team/gmpfrxx-mkii and science-team/mplapack and push the existing DEP-14 / git-buildpackage branches. - Maintainer: Debian Science Maintainers <[email protected]> Uploaders: Maho NAKATA <[email protected]> - File ITP bugs for both packages with X-Debbugs-Cc to debian-science. octave-mplapack stays with the Debian Octave Group as before. If anyone objects to this arrangement or prefers a different repository layout, please let me know by 12 October. Otherwise I will go ahead. I am not a Debian Developer, so these packages will need a sponsor once they are ready for the archive. If anyone on the team is interested in reviewing or sponsoring them, I would appreciate hearing from you. I am not subscribed to debian-science, so please CC me on replies. Best regards, Maho On Fri, Sep 25, 2026 at 10:31 AM Maho NAKATA <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
