Re: Bug#787329: RFS: gpaw/0.10.0.11364 ITP -- DFT and beyond within the projector-augmented wave method
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:04:33AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
gpaw-setups is a dependency of gpaw and not very useful independently I
think? So I wonder why it should be on the blends page, do we assume
users might want to install it on its own?
You are correct - it does not make much sense on the Blends page. I
have not verified before asking for it. I'll remove it again from the
tasks (which does not mean that I will refuse SoB for sure ;-)).
we have discussed the reason why gpaw-setups (gpaw-data) should be shipped
by Debian.
The discussion starts here:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2015/07/msg00033.html
I can add that the potentials included in gpaw-data can be also read by
Abinit.
I CC Michael Banck on this.
Or is the plan to just document the dependency, but not have it show up
there cause I don't see gpaw-setups on the physics blends web sentinel
yet?
I am not sure which format it implements for the data files it ships, is
it some standard that could be picked up by other packages using PAW?
Further remark on the package after having a sponsoring look: Is there
any specific reason to name the source package gpaw-setups and the
resulting binary gpaw-data. For a single binary package it is more
convenient to choose the same name for both. I'm asking just for the
sake of interest since if you decide later for a name change it needs
another pass through the new queue.
gpaw-data has been also decided during
https://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2015/07/msg00033.html
I think this is because similar packages, abinit-data
quantum-espresso-data, used this naming convention.
Moreover I did two commits to Git:
1. cme fix dpkg-control
- fixing Vcs-Browser
- fixing line breaks in long description
- does other stuff for normalinsing.
- please do do in future or fix the resulting lintian issues
otherwise
2. Added missing ${misc:Depends} as lintian was asking you to do
OK thanks. There is a new GPAW release (just today), but this requires
python-ase-3.9.0 which
is not in Debian yet. gpaw-data (or gpaw-setups) stays the old one.
I think we just continue with GPAW-0.10.0 and make package update later.
Marcin
The last commit saying Upload to new is not really true until you
comment on the naming choice.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Re: RFS: gpaw/0.10.0.11364 ITP -- DFT and beyond within the projector-augmented wave method
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:07:15PM +0200, Marcin Dulak wrote: Moreover I'm afraid ftpmaster will not accept this package since there is a policy to refuse new Python 2 only packages. Could you check whether gpaw could be ported to Python 3? there is a work upstream on porting to python3, but i think it's not completed yet. Would you mind verifying with upstream? If there is some preliminary stuff we might be able to upload to experimental or at least some schedule when Python 3 support will be ready we could do something. I do not think that it is helpful if we simply fill the new queue with something that will be rejected anyway. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150722161317.gk9...@an3as.eu
Re: RFS: gpaw/0.10.0.11364 ITP -- DFT and beyond within the projector-augmented wave method
Hi, On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:17:43PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: See the prior discussion, I though it was more in line with the rest of the science packages to call it -data. I'm perfectly fine with the -data name - but I see no reason why the source package should have a different name. For a single binary package it is more convenient to choose the same name for both. Can you explain what the convenience is? Or rather what the problems with different names are? It is no problem but at several points it is somehow confusing to have different names. I would not do this without good reason and I do not see a good reason to use gpaw-data also for the source package. We have quite a few pacakges that are called as source package (due to upstream choices) than the binary package. I know this and that's why I give slight warning that I would not do this. I would consider deriving from the upstream name choice for the source package as well. It was just a hint for a newcomer and I have no strong opinion about it. Just mentioning it - if it is choosen intentionally that is OK for me and I will upload as is. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150722162023.gl9...@an3as.eu
Re: Bug#787329: RFS: gpaw/0.10.0.11364 ITP -- DFT and beyond within the projector-augmented wave method
Hi, On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:18:04PM +0200, Marcin Dulak wrote: tasks (which does not mean that I will refuse SoB for sure ;-)). we have discussed the reason why gpaw-setups (gpaw-data) should be shipped by Debian. The discussion starts here: https://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2015/07/msg00033.html I can add that the potentials included in gpaw-data can be also read by Abinit. OK, I'll upload the current state of Git. OK thanks. There is a new GPAW release (just today), but this requires python-ase-3.9.0 which May be you file a bug report (severity wishlist) against python-ase new upstream version available. When doing so it might be sensible to suggest maintenance in the Debian Science team. This would enable us to act more quickly and do a team upload of the package. is not in Debian yet. gpaw-data (or gpaw-setups) stays the old one. I think we just continue with GPAW-0.10.0 and make package update later. As I said before: No new Python 2 only packages will pass the new queue without any additional information. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150722162844.gm9...@an3as.eu
Re: RFS: gpaw/0.10.0.11364 ITP -- DFT and beyond within the projector-augmented wave method
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu wrote: Hi Marcin, On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:32:09AM +0200, Marcin Dulak wrote: so I need gpaw-setups somehow listed at http://blends.debian.org/science/tasks/physics I see gpaw is already there. I had a sponsoring look at gpaw. Also here lintian should claim Vcs-Browser. The easiest way to fix this is to use cme fix dpkg-control Moreover I'm afraid ftpmaster will not accept this package since there is a policy to refuse new Python 2 only packages. Could you check whether gpaw could be ported to Python 3? there is a work upstream on porting to python3, but i think it's not completed yet. Marcin Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150722141122.gf9...@an3as.eu
Re: RFS: gpaw/0.10.0.11364 ITP -- DFT and beyond within the projector-augmented wave method
On 07/22/2015 04:11 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: Moreover I'm afraid ftpmaster will not accept this package since there is a policy to refuse new Python 2 only packages. Huh? Since when should there be such a policy? Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/55afb633.60...@debian.org
Re: RFS: gpaw/0.10.0.11364 ITP -- DFT and beyond within the projector-augmented wave method
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 04:06:35PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: Further remark on the package after having a sponsoring look: Is there any specific reason to name the source package gpaw-setups and the resulting binary gpaw-data. See the prior discussion, I though it was more in line with the rest of the science packages to call it -data. For a single binary package it is more convenient to choose the same name for both. Can you explain what the convenience is? Or rather what the problems with different names are? We have quite a few pacakges that are called as source package (due to upstream choices) than the binary package. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150722151742.gv29...@raptor.chemicalconnection.dyndns.org
Re: RFS: gpaw/0.10.0.11364 ITP -- DFT and beyond within the projector-augmented wave method
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:26:43PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: On 07/22/2015 04:11 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: Moreover I'm afraid ftpmaster will not accept this package since there is a policy to refuse new Python 2 only packages. Huh? Since when should there be such a policy? Discussion about this starts here https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2015/04/msg00063.html I understood this thread https://lists.debian.org/debian-med/2015/06/msg00051.html as if this would applied by ftpmaster. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150722192632.gr9...@an3as.eu
Re: RFS: gpaw/0.10.0.11364 ITP -- DFT and beyond within the projector-augmented wave method
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 06:20:23PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:17:43PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: See the prior discussion, I though it was more in line with the rest of the science packages to call it -data. I'm perfectly fine with the -data name - but I see no reason why the source package should have a different name. Well, the source package should follow upstream's naming and especially tarball naming conventions. Renaming the source package would be much more confusing than having different names for the binary and the source package name. For a single binary package it is more convenient to choose the same name for both. Can you explain what the convenience is? Or rather what the problems with different names are? It is no problem but at several points it is somehow confusing to have different names. I would not do this without good reason and I do not see a good reason to use gpaw-data also for the source package. The binary package name is exposed to users, the source package name is only exposed to developers, really. And they should not be confused by this, IMO. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150722193232.gj8...@raptor.chemicalconnection.dyndns.org
Re: RFS: gpaw/0.10.0.11364 ITP -- DFT and beyond within the projector-augmented wave method
Hi, so I need gpaw-setups somehow listed at http://blends.debian.org/science/tasks/physics I see gpaw is already there. How can I get gpaw-setups listed there too? I added gpaw and gpaw-setups entries at the bottom of https://wiki.debian.org/DebianPureBlends/SoB Marcin On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu wrote: Hi Marcin, I'm not sure whether you are aware about Sponsering of Blends: https://wiki.debian.org/DebianPureBlends/SoB I'll sponsor your package if it fulfills the requirements named there. Kind regards and thanks for working on this package Andreas. On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:15:11AM +0200, Marcin Dulak wrote: Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist I am looking for a sponsor for my package gpaw: * Package name: gpaw Version : 0.10.0.11364 Upstream Author : GPAW-community gpaw-develop...@listserv.fysik.dtu.dk * URL : https://wiki.fysik.dtu.dk/gpaw/ * License : GPLv3+ Programming Lang: C, Python Description : DFT and beyond within the projector-augmented wave method It builds those binary packages: gpaw - python module, executable and scripts The package is available at https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debian-science/packages/gpaw.git Marcin -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150721165507.gr17...@an3as.eu
Re: RFS: gpaw/0.10.0.11364 ITP -- DFT and beyond within the projector-augmented wave method
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:32:09AM +0200, Marcin Dulak wrote: so I need gpaw-setups somehow listed at http://blends.debian.org/science/tasks/physics I see gpaw is already there. How can I get gpaw-setups listed there too? I added gpaw and gpaw-setups entries at the bottom of https://wiki.debian.org/DebianPureBlends/SoB gpaw-setups is a dependency of gpaw and not very useful independently I think? So I wonder why it should be on the blends page, do we assume users might want to install it on its own? Or is the plan to just document the dependency, but not have it show up there cause I don't see gpaw-setups on the physics blends web sentinel yet? I am not sure which format it implements for the data files it ships, is it some standard that could be picked up by other packages using PAW? Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150722090432.gr29...@raptor.chemicalconnection.dyndns.org
Re: RFS: gpaw/0.10.0.11364 ITP -- DFT and beyond within the projector-augmented wave method
Hi Marcin, On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:32:09AM +0200, Marcin Dulak wrote: so I need gpaw-setups somehow listed at http://blends.debian.org/science/tasks/physics I see gpaw is already there. How can I get gpaw-setups listed there too? By adding it to the physics tasks in the debian-science source package Git. I just did it for now. In case you might consider further packages (or you might maintain packages that are not yet listed there) please send me a patch. I added gpaw and gpaw-setups entries at the bottom of https://wiki.debian.org/DebianPureBlends/SoB OK, I'll have a look. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150722084921.ga9...@an3as.eu
Re: Bug#787329: RFS: gpaw/0.10.0.11364 ITP -- DFT and beyond within the projector-augmented wave method
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:18:04PM +0200, Marcin Dulak wrote: There is a new GPAW release (just today), but this requires python-ase-3.9.0 which is not in Debian yet. I did post about this a week ago to debian-science and debichem lists: I've been working on the python-ase packaging in git [1]. ... [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debichem/packages/python-ase.git -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAM8zJQucd9PcgRvbAKhe1HLMFZjAXUPw3Yr7+A+Ss+=met2...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Bug#787329: RFS: gpaw/0.10.0.11364 ITP -- DFT and beyond within the projector-augmented wave method
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:24:09PM +0200, Graham Inggs wrote: On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:18:04PM +0200, Marcin Dulak wrote: There is a new GPAW release (just today), but this requires python-ase-3.9.0 which is not in Debian yet. I did post about this a week ago to debian-science and debichem lists: I've been working on the python-ase packaging in git [1]. ... [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debichem/packages/python-ase.git Ahhh, let me know if you need sponsoring Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150723042016.gw9...@an3as.eu
Re: RFS: gpaw/0.10.0.11364 ITP -- DFT and beyond within the projector-augmented wave method
Hi Michael,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:04:33AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
gpaw-setups is a dependency of gpaw and not very useful independently I
think? So I wonder why it should be on the blends page, do we assume
users might want to install it on its own?
You are correct - it does not make much sense on the Blends page. I
have not verified before asking for it. I'll remove it again from the
tasks (which does not mean that I will refuse SoB for sure ;-)).
Or is the plan to just document the dependency, but not have it show up
there cause I don't see gpaw-setups on the physics blends web sentinel
yet?
I am not sure which format it implements for the data files it ships, is
it some standard that could be picked up by other packages using PAW?
Further remark on the package after having a sponsoring look: Is there
any specific reason to name the source package gpaw-setups and the
resulting binary gpaw-data. For a single binary package it is more
convenient to choose the same name for both. I'm asking just for the
sake of interest since if you decide later for a name change it needs
another pass through the new queue.
Moreover I did two commits to Git:
1. cme fix dpkg-control
- fixing Vcs-Browser
- fixing line breaks in long description
- does other stuff for normalinsing.
- please do do in future or fix the resulting lintian issues
otherwise
2. Added missing ${misc:Depends} as lintian was asking you to do
The last commit saying Upload to new is not really true until you
comment on the naming choice.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150722140635.gd9...@an3as.eu
Re: RFS: gpaw/0.10.0.11364 ITP -- DFT and beyond within the projector-augmented wave method
Hi Marcin, On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:32:09AM +0200, Marcin Dulak wrote: so I need gpaw-setups somehow listed at http://blends.debian.org/science/tasks/physics I see gpaw is already there. I had a sponsoring look at gpaw. Also here lintian should claim Vcs-Browser. The easiest way to fix this is to use cme fix dpkg-control Moreover I'm afraid ftpmaster will not accept this package since there is a policy to refuse new Python 2 only packages. Could you check whether gpaw could be ported to Python 3? Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150722141122.gf9...@an3as.eu
