Re: [Pkg-scicomp-devel] Package categories
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Christophe Prud'homme wrote: Science and pkg-scicomp and the possible actions to take (for example merge pkg-scicomp into Debian Science) I would be in favour of a merge. It is not very wise to have two projects whithout reason (especially if the protagonists of one of them do not have so much time for communication - which is nothing I would blame anybody about, but it just puts the project into weak conditions). Kind regards and thanks to your work on pkg-scicomp anyway Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-scicomp-devel] Package categories
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008, Michael Banck wrote: We have the following, as far as I can tell: biology - debian-med chemistry - debichem, with some in debian-med and debian-science ACK (for both, even if the scope of debian-med contains more than only Biology). physics - (?, right now pkg-scicomp and debian-science, AIUI) According to my perception physics is covered not separately but is just under the Debian Science cover. It needs to be picked up by a (not yet existing) Debian Physics team. It might be born out of the existing projects if there are people with a certain amount of time to spend on it and who are willing to do some grunt work to make some things happen ... That is for the applications. Then there is the underlying numerical/mathematical support packages like blas, lapack, etc. which go into pkg-scicomp mostly. Well, the underlying tools might be used in several sciences (comparable to the typesetting tools that are used in different sciences). A CDD does not actually mean packaging ralated applications but rather providing applications to the user which makes a complete working environment. That definitely means to provide applications from other fields - you do not necessarily package it yourself in the CDD - just tell YOUR users what is there and were you have at least an eye uppon for them. My personal opinion would be to package end-user applications either in a specialized team/repo like debian-med or debichem, or, if no such team exists for that field of science (like physics, as I understand it) in debian-science. Makes sense. But there is finally no harm if some maintainer does the job alone in a perfect quality. Just keep an eye on it (and tools for Debian Med to do so will be enhanced soon to enable others with nice QA pages) and insist if something happens that harms your QA expectations. Packages (mostly libraries), which are of general use to scientific packages would be packaged by pkg-scicomp. Well, as I said in another thread, I did never completeyl understand the scope of pkg-scicomp. Perhaps it is just an effort which intended to fix the weakness of the Debian Science team form about one year ago when it was rather just a simple mailing list and intended to become the technical arm. I would be in favour of joining pkg-scicomp back into Debian Science team. But this is just my personal opinion ... At this point I assume that it is no problem in all of the above mentioned (alioth) teams that members from one team get added to the other team once we established that a particular package that person maintains should get moved over. Yes. One issue is the DVCS the team uses, some seem to use git and some svn, so we should see how to collaborate here. Yes. I think Vcs divergence in Debian is a burden for several people - but we will not solve this issue. Debian Med team decided decided to stick to SVN - but we just lost Git adictives who were unwilling to cope with this. So if those Git people will find a home in Debian Science I'm fine with this. This group is actually not particularly wrong and the package is somehow group maintained. So I alsways try to go the the pragmatic way which puts a package under a reasonably working group maintenance and leaves the person who is mainly working on it enough freedom. We than collect the packages in question in our tasks files to present them for the user. This is a clear implementation of the fact that there is the user view onto Debian which has to be focussed onto the packages of his very interest and the Debian developer who just makes sure that there are high quality packages. A CDD is just the implementation of the missing link between both views which is done via meta packages or the tasks pages in the web etc. Kind regards from Argentina Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-scicomp-devel] Package categories
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 02:42:28PM +0200, Ondrej Certik wrote: On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Christophe Prud'homme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the same time, I am wondering why abinit got uploaded to pkg-scicomp without consulting the debichem team first? simple and honest answer: we didn't know about debichem. the person who brought abinit to pkg-scicomp, Ondrej Certik, does a superb job and he is certainly very helpful in bringing good scientific software to Debian. I suggest that you contact him and ask him whether abinit maintenance should be done in debichem. I didn't know about this group. If you want to help with the package, we can add debichem to uploaders. As Christophe said, I also don't follow all lists, it's just impossible. I follow debian-devel from time to time, then debian lists and if I want to package something, I do ITP bug and then bring it to the team that I find the best. So if you want to help with a package, imho you should talk to us, or reply to the ITP bug. And I would say, yeas, thanks, go ahead with the packaging. So, if you want to help, I have no problems if you start taking care of the package from now on. For example there is a new upstream release that should be tested and uploaded. I'm certainly willing to help in general, but I think it makes sense to discuss the scopes of the different project in more detail. We have the following, as far as I can tell: biology - debian-med chemistry - debichem, with some in debian-med and debian-science physics - (?, right now pkg-scicomp and debian-science, AIUI) That is for the applications. Then there is the underlying numerical/mathematical support packages like blas, lapack, etc. which go into pkg-scicomp mostly. My personal opinion would be to package end-user applications either in a specialized team/repo like debian-med or debichem, or, if no such team exists for that field of science (like physics, as I understand it) in debian-science. Packages (mostly libraries), which are of general use to scientific packages would be packaged by pkg-scicomp. At this point I assume that it is no problem in all of the above mentioned (alioth) teams that members from one team get added to the other team once we established that a particular package that person maintains should get moved over. One issue is the DVCS the team uses, some seem to use git and some svn, so we should see how to collaborate here. Now, for the more specific case of abinit (and openmx and dft++): I looked at their homepages a bit more, and I think it is probably useful to draw the line between code which does periodic (i.e. mostly solids) systems to ones which have concrete coordinates and basis sets (i.e. isolated molecules in the gas phase). So the former would more physics oriented, while the latter is more chemistry. So I'm in favour of moving abinit and openmx to debian-science (or a physics-related packaging repository). Doing the same reasoning, v-sim should be moved from debian-science to debichem (or debian-med). All this can wait until lenny is released I guess, but agreeing on a general way forward now (and including that plan in the Bits from debian science newsletter) can be done now. cheers, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-scicomp-devel] Package categories
At the same time, I am wondering why abinit got uploaded to pkg-scicomp without consulting the debichem team first? simple and honest answer: we didn't know about debichem. the person who brought abinit to pkg-scicomp, Ondrej Certik, does a superb job and he is certainly very helpful in bringing good scientific software to Debian. I suggest that you contact him and ask him whether abinit maintenance should be done in debichem. I'm a real fan of communication - so please be nice to each other and at least drop some notes to potentially interested groups ... agreed It seems pointless to have competing packaging groups around, Yes. As long as a package is solidly maintained there is no reason to blame anybody. I thought pkg-scicomp was mainly packaging software which is of general interest to scientific computing (like lapack, blas, etc.), not specific applications for which other packaging groups (and debian-science more generally) are already available. I admit that for me the role of pkg-scicomp is somehow unclear and the communication is not really the best. That's why we did not waited for the pkg-scicomp team to push the Debian Science effort but did this on our own and hope for a reasonable cooperation. the communication problem is certainly my fault. I have an extremely busy life and following the various discussions is close to impossible. At best I can read some of the emails and sometimes answer or give a quick heads up like now. At the moment I concentrate mainly on getting some important (at least to me ) packages done. I hope to find some time in August to get up to date as to Debian science and the various things being done there. After that I will try to think about what could be done between Debian Science and pkg-scicomp and the possible actions to take (for example merge pkg-scicomp into Debian Science) Best regards C. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-scicomp-devel] Package categories
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Chris Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: George Serbanut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi everyone, May I ask you what version of DFT you want to put into the repository? (The DFT++ coming from Cornell?) That's because I am interested in getting it (I was thinking to install it myself). I used DFT to mean Density Functional Theory. There are several programs that perform calculations using this technique (including DFT++). Searching the unstable distribution for Density functional theory at http://packages.debian.org/ brings up the following packages which mention DFT: abinit, mpqc, openmx As far as I can tell, DFT++ is not packaged, and there is no ITP/RFP bug saying it will be packaged, or requesting that it be packaged. It'd be nice if someone could package DFT++ package. I packaged abinit and openmx, but don't have time for another one. :) Ondrej -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-scicomp-devel] Package categories
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Christophe Prud'homme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the same time, I am wondering why abinit got uploaded to pkg-scicomp without consulting the debichem team first? simple and honest answer: we didn't know about debichem. the person who brought abinit to pkg-scicomp, Ondrej Certik, does a superb job and he is certainly very helpful in bringing good scientific software to Debian. I suggest that you contact him and ask him whether abinit maintenance should be done in debichem. I didn't know about this group. If you want to help with the package, we can add debichem to uploaders. As Christophe said, I also don't follow all lists, it's just impossible. I follow debian-devel from time to time, then debian lists and if I want to package something, I do ITP bug and then bring it to the team that I find the best. So if you want to help with a package, imho you should talk to us, or reply to the ITP bug. And I would say, yeas, thanks, go ahead with the packaging. So, if you want to help, I have no problems if you start taking care of the package from now on. For example there is a new upstream release that should be tested and uploaded. Ondrej -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-scicomp-devel] Package categories
Hi Ondrej and Chris, I know what means DFT (even if I am not chemist; my girlfriend is :D) and I was looking for a software which can do DFT. I was even tempted to write it myself, but I noticed the efforts from the Cornell University, so, I decided to give it a chance. I would package the DFT++, but next week I start my vacation and I planned for this year a long trip by bike, so, I won't be able to do anything by the end of September (my holiday is not so long, even if I wish for such one :D). If nobody will do it by then, I will try to do it. On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Ondrej Certik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Chris Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: George Serbanut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi everyone, May I ask you what version of DFT you want to put into the repository? (The DFT++ coming from Cornell?) That's because I am interested in getting it (I was thinking to install it myself). I used DFT to mean Density Functional Theory. There are several programs that perform calculations using this technique (including DFT++). Searching the unstable distribution for Density functional theory at http://packages.debian.org/ brings up the following packages which mention DFT: abinit, mpqc, openmx As far as I can tell, DFT++ is not packaged, and there is no ITP/RFP bug saying it will be packaged, or requesting that it be packaged. It'd be nice if someone could package DFT++ package. I packaged abinit and openmx, but don't have time for another one. :) Ondrej
