Re: viewmol: /usr/bin/viewmol missing for most archs
On Wed, 2015-07-15 at 16:50 +0200, Graham Inggs wrote: On 03/07/2015 09:57, Drew Parsons wrote: On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 21:59 +0200, Graham Inggs wrote: Hi Drew On 13 November 2014 at 02:23, Drew Parsons dpars...@debian.org wrote: In those terms it makes sense for Debian Science to handle the lonely science-related packages that don't have a more focussed home. I'm happy then for viewmol to be handled under DebiChem. Just letting you know I'll be moving the viewmol package over to debichem and doing some QA work on it. Thanks for that Graham, I appreciate the extra help. No worries! Work-in-progress here: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debichem/packages/viewmol.git/ I used 'git-import-dscs --debsnap --pristine-tar viewmol' to pull in all the previous versions and then merged in the debian-unstable branch from debian-science to preserve your commit history. Looks good. Thanks again. Drew -- 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/1437007071.17438.8.ca...@debian.org
Re: viewmol: /usr/bin/viewmol missing for most archs
On 03/07/2015 09:57, Drew Parsons wrote: On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 21:59 +0200, Graham Inggs wrote: Hi Drew On 13 November 2014 at 02:23, Drew Parsons dpars...@debian.org wrote: In those terms it makes sense for Debian Science to handle the lonely science-related packages that don't have a more focussed home. I'm happy then for viewmol to be handled under DebiChem. Just letting you know I'll be moving the viewmol package over to debichem and doing some QA work on it. Thanks for that Graham, I appreciate the extra help. No worries! Work-in-progress here: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debichem/packages/viewmol.git/ I used 'git-import-dscs --debsnap --pristine-tar viewmol' to pull in all the previous versions and then merged in the debian-unstable branch from debian-science to preserve your commit history. -- 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/55a67345.2000...@nerve.org.za
Re: viewmol: /usr/bin/viewmol missing for most archs
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 21:59 +0200, Graham Inggs wrote: Hi Drew On 13 November 2014 at 02:23, Drew Parsons dpars...@debian.org wrote: In those terms it makes sense for Debian Science to handle the lonely science-related packages that don't have a more focussed home. I'm happy then for viewmol to be handled under DebiChem. Just letting you know I'll be moving the viewmol package over to debichem and doing some QA work on it. Thanks for that Graham, I appreciate the extra help. Drew -- 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/1435910234.14376.3.ca...@debian.org
Re: viewmol: /usr/bin/viewmol missing for most archs
Hi Drew On 13 November 2014 at 02:23, Drew Parsons dpars...@debian.org wrote: In those terms it makes sense for Debian Science to handle the lonely science-related packages that don't have a more focussed home. I'm happy then for viewmol to be handled under DebiChem. Just letting you know I'll be moving the viewmol package over to debichem and doing some QA work on it. Regards Graham -- 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/CAM8zJQtcsBmDZo4aNznZnndMTOnBiaOBUg5vUyi1ctN=p8b...@mail.gmail.com
Re: viewmol: /usr/bin/viewmol missing for most archs
On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 10:39 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: [moving the subject to Debian Science + debichem list] On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 06:05:42PM +1100, Drew Parsons wrote: I don't have a strong opinion on it. Certainly viewmol does fit in perfectly with DebiChem, and so I don't really mind having it relocated. OK. I guess my more general feeling is that it could be better to have just the one Debian Science, such that the DebiChem folk become Debian Science members. (As a general comment, I'm not a fan of strict field specialisation. I prefer the title of physical scientist over physicist or chemist). I perfectly share your point of view from a scientists perspective. However, from a package maintenance perspective I consider it better to have some specialised teams. A frequently issued criticisim about the Debian Science team (seek for Matthias Klose here on Debian Science mailing list archive for instance) is that the team is so large that nobody really cares about single packages. While I do not fully agree to the criticism I admit that there is a point. I consider the more focussed teams of Debian Med (for biology) and Debian GIS as a quite successful example for this. That's a fair point. It's an example of the tragedy of the commons. Especially when we'll all so busy with our day jobs, under the larger umbrella there's the temptation to think someone else will take care of it. It also needs to be said that there is no competition between these teams who maintains what package. For instance in Debian Med we are maintaining insighttoolkit which is a 3D imaging library which is used in medical imaging as well as in GIS for creating 3D graphical objects. It has only historical reasons that the Debian Med team cares. We also have quite some share in Debian Med with DebiChem - this never has caused any problem since a certain amount of developers is in both teams. We simply are profiting from some common knowledge. True too. It doesn't have to be an either/or tribalism. Then the identity of Debian Chemistry would be more a question of managing the science-chemistry package under the Debian Science umbrella, with the interested developers spending their time on this chemistry-oriented subset of Debian Science. I'd rather prefer if the science-chemistry package would be basically depending from debichem-* metapackages which would reduce the maintenance effort. The only reason why this currently is no good idea is that the web sentinel does not yet have the feature to resolve such metapackage dependencies and present the single packages on the tasks page. I plan to implement this in the (hopefully not so far) future. I see - some technical reasons too. This is broader discussion than just the management of viewmol. Why is DebiChem separate from Debian Science? I'm sure it was discussed already, I should look up the mailing list archives :) There are two reasons: First DebiChem is older than Debian Science and second as I tried to explain above I'd consider it correct and it was discussed here that Debian Science is rather an umbrella where smaller Blends might be spring off from if a sufficient number of team members arises. In those terms it makes sense for Debian Science to handle the lonely science-related packages that don't have a more focussed home. I'm happy then for viewmol to be handled under DebiChem. Drew -- 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/1415838196.31921.7.ca...@debian.org
Re: viewmol: /usr/bin/viewmol missing for most archs
[moving the subject to Debian Science + debichem list] On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 06:05:42PM +1100, Drew Parsons wrote: I don't have a strong opinion on it. Certainly viewmol does fit in perfectly with DebiChem, and so I don't really mind having it relocated. OK. I guess my more general feeling is that it could be better to have just the one Debian Science, such that the DebiChem folk become Debian Science members. (As a general comment, I'm not a fan of strict field specialisation. I prefer the title of physical scientist over physicist or chemist). I perfectly share your point of view from a scientists perspective. However, from a package maintenance perspective I consider it better to have some specialised teams. A frequently issued criticisim about the Debian Science team (seek for Matthias Klose here on Debian Science mailing list archive for instance) is that the team is so large that nobody really cares about single packages. While I do not fully agree to the criticism I admit that there is a point. I consider the more focussed teams of Debian Med (for biology) and Debian GIS as a quite successful example for this. It also needs to be said that there is no competition between these teams who maintains what package. For instance in Debian Med we are maintaining insighttoolkit which is a 3D imaging library which is used in medical imaging as well as in GIS for creating 3D graphical objects. It has only historical reasons that the Debian Med team cares. We also have quite some share in Debian Med with DebiChem - this never has caused any problem since a certain amount of developers is in both teams. We simply are profiting from some common knowledge. Then the identity of Debian Chemistry would be more a question of managing the science-chemistry package under the Debian Science umbrella, with the interested developers spending their time on this chemistry-oriented subset of Debian Science. I'd rather prefer if the science-chemistry package would be basically depending from debichem-* metapackages which would reduce the maintenance effort. The only reason why this currently is no good idea is that the web sentinel does not yet have the feature to resolve such metapackage dependencies and present the single packages on the tasks page. I plan to implement this in the (hopefully not so far) future. This is broader discussion than just the management of viewmol. Why is DebiChem separate from Debian Science? I'm sure it was discussed already, I should look up the mailing list archives :) There are two reasons: First DebiChem is older than Debian Science and second as I tried to explain above I'd consider it correct and it was discussed here that Debian Science is rather an umbrella where smaller Blends might be spring off from if a sufficient number of team members arises. 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/2014093921.gi13...@an3as.eu
