Re: Please categorise your packages for the Debian Science metapackages: fenics/dolfin

On Thu, 2017-01-05 at 21:36 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > I'd like you something else to consider:  A user *application* should > not contain the programming language it was written in its package > name. > I have not checked but dolphin-bin sounds way more like a user > application than

Re: Please categorise your packages for the Debian Science metapackages: fenics/dolfin

Hi again, On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 01:40:52AM +0800, Drew Parsons wrote: > > What I mean is that there are a number of component packages which > together make up FENiCS: > dolfin-bin > python-dolfin > python-ffc > python-ufl > python-dijitso > python-instant >

Re: Please categorise your packages for the Debian Science metapackages: fenics/dolfin

On Thu, 2017-01-05 at 14:01 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi Drew, > > I'm not sure whether I fully understand your suggestion. What I mean is that there are a number of component packages which together make up FENiCS: dolfin-bin python-dolfin python-ffc python-ufl

Re: Please categorise your packages for the Debian Science metapackages: fenics/dolfin

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Drew Parsons wrote: > On Thu, 2017-01-05 at 18:11 +0100, Johannes Ring wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Drew Parsons >> wrote: >> > >> > No worries, thanks Johannes. We'll keep the fenics metapackage. >> > >> > In

Re: Please categorise your packages for the Debian Science metapackages: fenics/dolfin

On Thu, 2017-01-05 at 18:11 +0100, Johannes Ring wrote: > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Drew Parsons > wrote: > > > > No worries, thanks Johannes. We'll keep the fenics metapackage. > > > > In regards to Andreas' task package, is there any sense putting in > > two > >

Re: Please categorise your packages for the Debian Science metapackages: fenics/dolfin

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Drew Parsons wrote: > On Thu, 2017-01-05 at 14:13 +0100, Johannes Ring wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Drew Parsons >> wrote: >> > dolfin is the front-end of the FENiCS system, and I think the >> > fenics >> >

Re: Please categorise your packages for the Debian Science metapackages: fenics/dolfin

On Thu, 2017-01-05 at 14:13 +0100, Johannes Ring wrote: > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Drew Parsons > wrote: > > dolfin is the front-end of the FENiCS system, and I think the > > fenics > > package is now deprecated.  Johannes, did you intend to update the > > fenics

Re: Please categorise your packages for the Debian Science metapackages: fenics/dolfin

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Drew Parsons wrote: > dolfin is the front-end of the FENiCS system, and I think the fenics > package is now deprecated. Johannes, did you intend to update the > fenics Debian metapackage, or should we remove it from the Debian > archive? I

Re: Please categorise your packages for the Debian Science metapackages: fenics/dolfin

Hi Drew, I'm not sure whether I fully understand your suggestion. On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 01:26:46PM +0800, Drew Parsons wrote: > Hi Andreas, there are a couple more fenics components in the  > mathematics-dev task: > > python-dolfin (and dolfin-dev) > python-ffc > python-ufl > > I'm

Re: Please categorise your packages for the Debian Science metapackages: fenics/dolfin

Hi Andreas, there are a couple more fenics components in the  mathematics-dev task: Python-dolfin (and dolfin-dev) python-ffc python-ufl I'm thinking it's redundant to list these separately under  mathematics-dev if there's already an entry in the mathematics task. Likewise in your

Re: Please categorise your packages for the Debian Science metapackages: fenics/dolfin

dolfin-bin and fenics are currently listed under the mathematics task. In a sense python-dolfin is more appropriate for listing than dolfin- bin. But dolfin-bin depends on it and also provides a couple of small utility programs. So I'm inclined to leave dolfin-bin as listed dolfin is the