[Pkg-openmpi-maintainers] Bug#767411: torque: should not be released with jessie

[M Milligan]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

I tend to agree that we shouldn't propagate an ancient unsupported 
branch
of torque into Jesse. Also, I really wish we were having this discussion 
a few
months ago, not the day(!) before freeze starts.

But, I *strongly* disagree that we should just accept the premise that 
we
can't ship a newer Torque. A quick search turns up several instances of 
people
from Adaptive Computing asserting that they want Torque to be free 
software,
or at very least freely redistributable. In particular, the final 
message on #641484
is from a Ken Nielson at Adaptive asking "Please let me know how we can 
help
you in understanding that this license is open or show us what we need 
to
change in order to make it clear that it is open." No reply to that 
query is recorded
in the tracker. Whether or not there is time to resolve this for Jesse, 
I think we
owe it to our users to finish that conversation.

That said, I don't see much point in just keeping the libtorque bit if 
we're dropping
the rest of Torque.

Regards,
Michael

On 2014-11-01 14:50, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 02:30:02PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
>> > Given Dominique's reply on #767411, from my POV I think the best
>> > solution would be to remove torque completely for jessie (i.e. first
>> > drop support from openmpi to be able to remove the package and
>> > remaining reverse dependencies).
>> 
>> 4 wheezy DSAs doesn't necessarily sound that horrible, so I don't
>> think we're clearly at the point where torque should be considered
>> unsupportable.  Maybe the patch backports were an incredible amount of
>> work?
> 
> Well, but the 2.4 branch is already no longer unsupported upstream
> and we shouldn't knowingly introduce it into a release which will be
> supported for five more years.
> 
>> The package does clearly need to be orphaned, so someone can step up
>> post-jessie to get the package in sync with upstream.
> 
> As written by Dominique that's no possible for license reasons.
> 
> Cheers,
>         Moritz
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=EPRM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----