[Pkg-scicomp-devel] joining debian-science and pkg-scicomp

[Ondrej Certik]

Hi Frederic,

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Frederic Lehobey <Frederic at lehobey.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Chris Walker <chrisw at chiark.greenend.org.uk> (2008-07-08 20:27:28) :
>> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 07:00:34PM +0200, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Sylvestre Ledru
>> > <sylvestre.ledru at scilab.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> > In the long run I'd really love to see the clans unite and grew into one
>> > >> > Debian Science team with specialized "subgroups". But there is much more
>> > >> > to do first and I doubt that everyone is with me in this respect. So
>> > >> > we'll see where all this goes.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DebianScientificComputingTeam says "The
>> > >> aim of Debian Scientific Computing Team is to provide home for all
>> > >> scientific packages in Debian. " and doesn't mention
>> > >> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianScience (and vice versa).
>> > >>
>>
>> And I was being slighlty unfair here - there is a link to
>> http://pkg-scicomp.alioth.debian.org/ under
>>
>> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianScience/ContributingToDebianScience.
>
>  You can find this information here too:
>
> http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DebianScience
> (that page could be updated nevertheless).
>
>  With respect to the discussion about joining repositories, it took
> place on debian-science mailing list in May. See for example
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2008/05/msg00053.html (and
> messages before and after in the same thread).
>
>  Personally I do not see debian-science and pkg-scicomp as competing
> efforts but as complementary ones. From the above discussion I
> understand pkg-scicomp has a narrower focus as debian-science which is
> mainly a place where to put packages when there is not a better place
> but if pkg-scicomp is the better place (as debichem or debian-gis
> might be for other topics) then it is perfectly fine. Let the packager
> decide which is the repository that better fulfills its needs or
> habits (svn, git, single or collaborative maintenance or whatever).
>
>  In any case I think we should notice one each other of every
> progress or packaging advances. For example, I learned from
> pkg-scicomp-commits Christophe Prud'homme was working on packaging
> OpenTurns. This is great news that will raise a lot of interest (I
> think for example Adam Powell is also interested in this, I do no know
> if he is subscribed to this list, but I suppose he is). Thanks a lot
> for your work. But I have not found your ITP yet. Do you plan to
> create one (for further reference) or do you plan to upload the
> package very soon?

Yes, thanks for the clarification. I now also don't see the teams as
competing. Our wiki was fixed, so I think all is clear now.

Yes, I also agree that communication is sometimes not so sufficient
with regards of packaging new stuff, but I think it's not intentional
and couple emails should fix that. But I think the one who does the
packaging should write the email to the list first + file an ITP bug,
so that anyone can easily see what his intentions are.

Ondrej