Recent ARPACK package
Hello, Where can I get a recent ARPACK package? I know it's been removed from main, but thought it should go into non-free soon, as it's been about three months. Thanks, -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Announcement: New bugs pages, status of renaming
Hi, I'm proud to announce a new QA tool for all CDD^W Blends: Overview about all bugs about Dependencies of our metapackages. For the impatient here is a list of these pages: Edu: http://cdd.alioth.debian.org/edu/bugs GIS: http://cdd.alioth.debian.org/gis/bugs Jr: http://cdd.alioth.debian.org/junior/bugs Med: http://debian-med.alioth.debian.org/bugs Science: http://cdd.alioth.debian.org/science/bugs For the moment I hesitate to announce the DebiChem project here because this is work is neither finished nor do I want to take over the fame of announcing somebody elses project, but you might like to have a preliminary look at DebiChem: http://cdd.alioth.debian.org/debichem/bugs as well. Please keep in mind that the tasks of this project are far from ready and there are also some remaining problems in obtaining the metapackage name in the page rendering code - I will fix this once the Debichem Project might agree to join the Blends effort and decides for a name. If you not care about the details of these pages but are interested in the status of CDD - Blends renaming you can skip some paragraphs now. Motivation for the bugs pages - My main motivation for Debian Pure Blends is that I see a need to find some substructure in the large flat package pool of Debian. I'm absolutely convinced that this has to be done based on user interest and needs and so every Blend should be an entry point for a specific user group into the large world of Debian. I think that a specific user group is interested in a specific set of packages and consequently they might care more about the bugs of these packages than in any random package. So how should we attract users to have a look into this very specific package bugs? The answer are these bug pages. Assume you are a mathematician and have some time to spend on bugs inside Debian. Where would you like to start seeking where to spend your time best? It should be helpful for both: For Debian and for you personal work and you should feel competent about the package you want to work on. Since today the answer is simple: Go to http://cdd.alioth.debian.org/science/bugs/mathematics.html and watch for bugs. On top of the page you see the note: Immediately looking into bugs of the dependencies of this metapackage is advised so your help is obviosely welcome. You also see immediately that there are two serious bugs in packages which are in the list of dependencies (not only suggested) of science-mathematics. So you found your targets quickly. The Bugs pages are not (yet) internationalised. I'm a little bit undecided whether this is really needed. I'm actually very keen on translations whereever needed - but if we want to attract people fixing the bugs they have to understand the bug report in English language anyway. So people unable to understand the navigation might probably be not able to work on the bugs. What do you think about this? Realisation of the evaluation of bug status --- I tried to find a measure how much help is needed for the dependencies of a metapackage. This measure is not about the quality of a metapackages because this would require a normalisation according to the number of packages. For instance a metapackage with 5 bugs in 25 dependendent packages is probably of a better quality than a metapackage with 3 bugs in 5 dependant packages. But I think we should care about the absolute number of bugs if we want to attract people who are willing to fix them and not about making some ranking inbetween metapackage quality. Moreover I think that bugs in packages that are in the list of Depends and Recommends should be weighted higher than those packages which are only suggested. This is reflected in the fact that the dependent packages are listed on top in a separate list. Below is a list of suggested packages. The bugs which are done are listed as well for historical reason - but they do n ot influence the bug status of the metapackage - done bugs do not need to attract our attention that much. The evaluation is done by finding some weighting numbers for the different severities ranging from 10 for the RC bugs until 0 for wishlist bugs (see the currently used numbers in the footnote on the bottom of each page). I decided to weight wishlist bugs with 0 not because I think that wishlist bugs are not very interesting. IMHO every bug should be fixed - but I think that it might be a very rare situation that on one page only bugs with severity wishlist and so chances are quite low that wishlist bugs are just overlooked because there is no mark on the index page to visit this page. These weighting numbers are multiplied by 3 if the package in question is a dependent or recommended package to reflect their higher importance. Lets make a simple example: http://cdd.alioth.debian.org/science/bugs/linguistics.html 1 serious
