Re: Continuing packaging effort (was: Bug#994272: RFS: opm-{common|material|grid|models|simulators|upscaling}/2021.04-1 [ITP] -- opm -- Open Porous Media Software Suite)
Hi Markus, thanks for this effort! I am also interested in this software and will review it within the next few days. Best regards Anton Am Do., 4. Nov. 2021 um 18:17 Uhr schrieb Markus Blatt : > > Hi, > > just to keep debian-science up to date (I am sorry for not CCing with the > original message to BTS and for multiple messages). > > Here is a copy of the message sent to Debian's BTS. > > We are still looking for a sponsor for the OPM packages. > > FYI: We are about to release the next upstream version 2021.10 and intend to > update the prospective Debian packages (see [0], [1] for all details). > Any comments and recommendations about the current packages are of course > welcome and we will try to incorporate them. It might of course make sense to > wait with uploading to NEW for the new release. I will report when the > packages > for the new release are available. > > What OPM is and why it should be in Debian: > > The Open Porous Media (OPM) software suite provides libraries and > tools for modeling and simulation of porous media processes, especially > for simulating CO2 sequestration and improved and enhanced oil recovery. > Its main part is a blackoil reservoir simulator with file input and output > compatible with a major commercial oil reservoir simulator. On some > cases it clearly outperforms the commercial one. Being open source it lowers > the bar for starting simulations and is used by industry, research institutes > and quite a few small consultancies. > > Looking foward to your reviews and sponsoring efforts. > > Cheers, > > Markus > > [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2021/09/msg00055.html > [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994272 > >
Re: Debian Math Team
On 4 November 2021 9:32:08 pm IST, Andreas Tille wrote: >Hi, > >Am Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 04:43:12PM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra: >> > I disagree. I find at least JavaScript and Perl packages quite uniform, >> > and I have an impression that at least >> >> I cannot say about perl, > >I absolutely agree about Perl team and as I said we left some Perl >libraries to that team and I would not mind if some Perl team member >asks for moving everything to them. For historic reasons we just >have some software written in Perl in Debian Med team. > >To come back to Debian Science: My gut feeling is that there are so >many packages of very different fields in very different state that it >is very hard to care for them all. My gut feeling is that some Debian >Math team can have a better overview and the quality of math related >packages can be enhanced. If some of these can be moved into good hands >of a language team - why not? Ofcourse, I never said we should not. But what I meant to say is that standards/ease of packaging are not same across teams and certain stuff is best if maintained in the language team. JS is a good example, same goes for say, golang (we very recently moved a lib there if you remember). But certain packages, which are very specifically either scientific or bioinformatics, I prefer our blends for these. One of the canonical reasons being that it'd be easier to track them for me. I absolutely don't mind someone taking them over, either. Nilesh
Re: Blends framework for Debian Math (Was: Science Subgroups [was Re: Debian Math Team])
On Thu 04 Nov 2021 12:06:47 PM EDT, Andreas Tille wrote: >> All mathematics >> packages? How do the categories work, and what conditions warrant a new >> category? > > You need to ask the mathematicians what might be sensible tasks. > The tasks mathematics and mathematics-dev are definitely non-sense > but it was the easiest way for me to kickstart something. One possible source of task categories is to use the American Mathematical Society's Mathematics Subject Classification [1]. This is already used to classify academic papers, and the problem of classifying mathematics software is certainly similar. Doug [1] https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet/msc/msc2020.html
Continuing packaging effort (was: Bug#994272: RFS: opm-{common|material|grid|models|simulators|upscaling}/2021.04-1 [ITP] -- opm -- Open Porous Media Software Suite)
Hi, just to keep debian-science up to date (I am sorry for not CCing with the original message to BTS and for multiple messages). Here is a copy of the message sent to Debian's BTS. We are still looking for a sponsor for the OPM packages. FYI: We are about to release the next upstream version 2021.10 and intend to update the prospective Debian packages (see [0], [1] for all details). Any comments and recommendations about the current packages are of course welcome and we will try to incorporate them. It might of course make sense to wait with uploading to NEW for the new release. I will report when the packages for the new release are available. What OPM is and why it should be in Debian: The Open Porous Media (OPM) software suite provides libraries and tools for modeling and simulation of porous media processes, especially for simulating CO2 sequestration and improved and enhanced oil recovery. Its main part is a blackoil reservoir simulator with file input and output compatible with a major commercial oil reservoir simulator. On some cases it clearly outperforms the commercial one. Being open source it lowers the bar for starting simulations and is used by industry, research institutes and quite a few small consultancies. Looking foward to your reviews and sponsoring efforts. Cheers, Markus [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2021/09/msg00055.html [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994272
Re: Blends framework for Debian Math (Was: Science Subgroups [was Re: Debian Math Team])
Hi Gard, Am Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 11:02:49AM +0100 schrieb Gard Spreemann: > > I've pushed the code for the metapackages to > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/blends-team/math/ > > > > and made > > > > Doug Torrance > > Julien Puydt > > Timo Röhling > > > > members of the Blends team to enable currating these files (which should > > be **really** done before announcing anything since its just a copy of the > > two tasks from debian-science and does not make any sense in this form.) > > Stupid questions: What packages should go into the task? That's not a stupid question but the key question! > All mathematics > packages? How do the categories work, and what conditions warrant a new > category? You need to ask the mathematicians what might be sensible tasks. The tasks mathematics and mathematics-dev are definitely non-sense but it was the easiest way for me to kickstart something. Please keep in mind that tasks should be user oriented and should fit the work ... the tasks! ... users are doing. Its extremely important to understand that one package can be in *several* tasks. So you can start with your own work, what you need and find a good field / category for your own work and put all these into a task. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: Debian Math Team
Hi, Am Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 04:43:12PM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra: > > I disagree. I find at least JavaScript and Perl packages quite uniform, > > and I have an impression that at least > > I cannot say about perl, I absolutely agree about Perl team and as I said we left some Perl libraries to that team and I would not mind if some Perl team member asks for moving everything to them. For historic reasons we just have some software written in Perl in Debian Med team. To come back to Debian Science: My gut feeling is that there are so many packages of very different fields in very different state that it is very hard to care for them all. My gut feeling is that some Debian Math team can have a better overview and the quality of math related packages can be enhanced. If some of these can be moved into good hands of a language team - why not? Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: Blends framework for Debian Math (Was: Science Subgroups [was Re: Debian Math Team])
Am Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 04:48:25PM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra: > > I've pushed the code for the metapackages to > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/blends-team/math/ > > Many thanks! You are welcome. > > [...] > > members of the Blends team to enable currating these files (which should > > be **really** done before announcing anything since its just a copy of the > > two tasks from debian-science and does not make any sense in this form.) > > Looks like I was already a member -- can you bump my access to that of a > maintainer? That'd ease my work there I took the freedom to bump it to owner. > > I've also did the necessary steps to create the web sentinel which you > > can see here: > > > > https://blends.debian.org/math/tasks/ > > > > Said members should probably feed some content into > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/blends-team/website/-/tree/master/www/math > > > > before anything is announced and links will be set. > > > > Hope this helps > > Awesome, thanks! It will become awesome once the tasks are properly curated. ;-) Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: Blends framework for Debian Math (Was: Science Subgroups [was Re: Debian Math Team])
On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 10:31:13AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > Am Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 03:41:43PM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra: > > > > > We should remember that having blends packages, blends web pages and > > > informative wiki pages are completely independent of having a defined > > > team with > > > separate VCS and mailing list. All that needs is one or more people to > > > curate > > > them. > > > > That's correct. I talked with Andreas yesterday on the debian-med bi-weekly > > call, and > > tasks for math packages should be done soonish :) > > I've pushed the code for the metapackages to > > https://salsa.debian.org/blends-team/math/ Many thanks! > and made > > [...] > members of the Blends team to enable currating these files (which should > be **really** done before announcing anything since its just a copy of the > two tasks from debian-science and does not make any sense in this form.) Looks like I was already a member -- can you bump my access to that of a maintainer? That'd ease my work there > I've also did the necessary steps to create the web sentinel which you > can see here: > > https://blends.debian.org/math/tasks/ > > Said members should probably feed some content into > > https://salsa.debian.org/blends-team/website/-/tree/master/www/math > > before anything is announced and links will be set. > > Hope this helps Awesome, thanks! Nilesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Math Team
Hi Andrius, On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 11:48:45AM +0200, Andrius Merkys wrote: > Maybe separate mailing lists could be enough? In the end > upstreams mostly work on one-two source packages, and even if they > become DMs they do not get push/upload permissions for all source > packages of a team, do they? I think this point is not exactly a discussion for the mathematics team, but pretty much several other teams (i.e separate lists, etc) Since this looks (to me) very generic and not very specific, maybe you'd want to ask -devel for more opinions, but :) > > since R packages are extremely uniform and > > usually come with test suites that can be re-used which to some extend > > is taking over the role of an expert knowing the software. There are > > also not really any specific decisions to make about the packaging since > > everything is really straightforward. > > > > This is absolutely different to software written in Python, Java or > > anything else. > > I disagree. I find at least JavaScript and Perl packages quite uniform, > and I have an impression that at least I cannot say about perl, but your argument is certainly invalid for javascript team. My journey to contributing in debian started with JS team, and I've been involved there ever since (few years by now), and no, they are _not_ uniform. Several packages need much more work than the defaults and maintaining JS is also more work for more techinal reasons (like embedding node modules for instance) Several packages come with typescript defs, and you need to take care of them. They come with varieties of build systems - webpack, rollup, grunt then terser, uglifyjs for minifying and what not. In majority of the JS packages I've touched (several dozens by now) I almost always had to do something more than just running some scripts and I can attest to that. A couple of years back, there was no pkg-js-tools (sort of a debhelper sort of tool for JS team) and the work was even more. Yadd later wrote this nice tool that automates a number of tasks, and maybe that gives you an impression that stuff is unform - sure, it has improved a lot, but you cannot compare it with R packages. You can maintain R packages without knowing the build system very well, but not JS. In case of R packages, dh-R takes care of literally everything. Ofcourse there are exceptions, but they are very rare. A template legit works just okay, always. Nilesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Blends framework for Debian Math (Was: Science Subgroups [was Re: Debian Math Team])
Andreas Tille writes: > Am Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 03:41:43PM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra: >> >> > We should remember that having blends packages, blends web pages and >> > informative wiki pages are completely independent of having a defined team >> > with >> > separate VCS and mailing list. All that needs is one or more people to >> > curate >> > them. >> >> That's correct. I talked with Andreas yesterday on the debian-med bi-weekly >> call, and >> tasks for math packages should be done soonish :) > > I've pushed the code for the metapackages to > > https://salsa.debian.org/blends-team/math/ > > and made > > Doug Torrance > Julien Puydt > Timo Röhling > > members of the Blends team to enable currating these files (which should > be **really** done before announcing anything since its just a copy of the > two tasks from debian-science and does not make any sense in this form.) Stupid questions: What packages should go into the task? All mathematics packages? How do the categories work, and what conditions warrant a new category? -- Gard signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian Math Team
Hi Andreas, Thanks for finding time to reply to my worries. On 2021-11-01 16:19, Andreas Tille wrote: > 1. Another "one-man" team > I think Ole gave a good answer here: Its not about creating a > one-man team but rather attract more people to the team - from > inside and outside Debian. For those who have any doubt that this > can work: There are 23 people who confirmed, that they became > DDs *because* Debian Med exists[4]. Debian Med is now nearly > 20 years old. I would love if Debian Math would beat Debian Med > in attracting new developers. (Andrius, you even belong to this > set. ;-) ) It is true that I am among these 23 :) My reason for being in the list is mostly pragmatical: it was Debian Med people who signed my key and advocated me to become a DD, and for this I am very grateful. I believe being very open and very friendly to newcomers is one of the strongest sides of Debian Med. > Those 20 years when the Debian Med project have teached me that > it is very important to advertise the fact to the world that Debian > is targeting specific fields of science and IMHO mathematics is > a) well worth to be advertised > b) has lots of technically competent people beeing potential DDs > > 2. Further fragmentation of debian-science > I do not think that another Blend will lead to fragmentation of > Debian Science. Sure, some mathematics related packages will be > moved sooner or later but I personally can not see in how far > this might weaken Debian Science. I personally see also additional > contributors for Debian Science once more mathematicans might > join Debian (as I'm very positive about). > > Am Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 06:18:28PM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra: >> Hi Andrius, >> >> Thanks for replying. See below :- >> >> On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 10:33:02AM +0300, Andrius Merkys wrote: I am skipping most of your replies to Nilesh's response to my mail. I ACK the skipped parts. >>> Furthermore, from my experience one does not need domain >>> knowledge to successfully package and maintain packages in Debian. >>> What makes more sense to me, is organizing packages into teams based on >>> programming languages and build/test systems, as such teams indeed >>> possess specific knowledge. I think most of the mails asking for help in >>> debian-med concern language and build system problems, not >>> domain-specific issues. >> >> I'm sorry, but I have to admit this argument of yours is sloppy, Andrius. >> By this logic, we could push entire debian-med python packages into >> python-team, >> java packages into java-team and so on... > > While this would work in principle the point of creating a Blend is to > attract experts who know the algorithm and internals of a certain > software to craft sensible packages and enable thorough testing. This > is usually not simply a programming language issue. In Debian Med we > have several upstreams maintaining their software as Debian packages > (after sufficient teaching of the packaging process and for sure > sponsored by a DD). IMHO exactly this is the strength of the Blends > concept to pair experts of the software with packaging experts. Even > better if this can be completed to involve users into that effort which > does not (yet) work as good as expected (but this has IMHO more external > reasons which we can hardly solve). I see your point. However I am not entirely convinced that teams are essential here. Maybe separate mailing lists could be enough? In the end upstreams mostly work on one-two source packages, and even if they become DMs they do not get push/upload permissions for all source packages of a team, do they? Domain-specific mailing lists could indeed be a go-to place for newcomers, those in need of help with packaging and sponsoring and so on. >>> I am worried reading about R packages being moved from debian-r to new >>> debian-math. I am afraid doing so might negatively impact their quality. >> >> You are right in your worries, but I have some statistics to present here. >> See here[1] or more specifically, look here[2,3] > > I'm not worried about moving R packages to some other Blend. It has > turned out to be a good idea to move all R packages from Debian Science, > Debian Med Debichem and possibly others into one language specific team. > However, this had happened since R packages are extremely uniform and > usually come with test suites that can be re-used which to some extend > is taking over the role of an expert knowing the software. There are > also not really any specific decisions to make about the packaging since > everything is really straightforward. > > This is absolutely different to software written in Python, Java or > anything else. I disagree. I find at least JavaScript and Perl packages quite uniform, and I have an impression that at least Perl packages outside the Debian Perl Team are generally in
Blends framework for Debian Math (Was: Science Subgroups [was Re: Debian Math Team])
Am Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 03:41:43PM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra: > > > We should remember that having blends packages, blends web pages and > > informative wiki pages are completely independent of having a defined team > > with > > separate VCS and mailing list. All that needs is one or more people to > > curate > > them. > > That's correct. I talked with Andreas yesterday on the debian-med bi-weekly > call, and > tasks for math packages should be done soonish :) I've pushed the code for the metapackages to https://salsa.debian.org/blends-team/math/ and made Doug Torrance Julien Puydt Timo Röhling members of the Blends team to enable currating these files (which should be **really** done before announcing anything since its just a copy of the two tasks from debian-science and does not make any sense in this form.) I've also did the necessary steps to create the web sentinel which you can see here: https://blends.debian.org/math/tasks/ Said members should probably feed some content into https://salsa.debian.org/blends-team/website/-/tree/master/www/math before anything is announced and links will be set. Hope this helps Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: Debian Math Team
Dear Anton, Am Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 09:09:15PM +0100 schrieb Anton Gladky: > I think we all have a very limited free time to work on Debian. > At least it is my situation. > > ... > > I will probably need to request membership in other teams due to > some QA or release-transition work, but I can fully understand you doubt and please let me use this chance to explicitly thank you for all your work in Debian Science. I'm pretty convinced that Debian Science would be in a worse shape without all your work. Thanks a lot for this! Regarding Debian Math I personally hope that moving mathematics packages from Debian Science repository to Debian Math repository which also means that these packages are taken from your todo list since I fully trust the members of the Debian Math team to take over the role to care for all packages under this scope. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
