Paraview status

[Francesco P. Lovergine-3]

Is anyone seriously working on paraview? It is still stalled at 3.4 while
3.6 is out, and there are a couple of serious bugs still open since ages.

--
Francesco P. Lovergine


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Sylvestre Ledru-6]

Le vendredi 09 octobre 2009 à 10:47 +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine a
écrit :
> Is anyone seriously working on paraview? It is still stalled at 3.4 while
> 3.6 is out, and there are a couple of serious bugs still open since ages.
AFAIK, Christophe is pretty busy these days and Ondrej is MIA. I think they will be happy to get some
help on this package.

Sylvestre

> --
> Francesco P. Lovergine
>



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Francesco P. Lovergine-3]

On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 11:34:02AM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Le vendredi 09 octobre 2009 à 10:47 +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine a
> écrit :
> > Is anyone seriously working on paraview? It is still stalled at 3.4 while
> > 3.6 is out, and there are a couple of serious bugs still open since ages.
> AFAIK, Christophe is pretty busy these days and Ondrej is MIA. I think they will be happy to get some
> help on this package.
>
> Sylvestre
>

Ok, I'm going to do a NMU for the most urgent bugs.
I also saw that the git repo is missing the qt.dpatch file.

--
Francesco P. Lovergine


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Sylvestre Ledru-6]

Le vendredi 09 octobre 2009 à 13:06 +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine a
écrit :

> On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 11:34:02AM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> > Le vendredi 09 octobre 2009 à 10:47 +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine a
> > écrit :
> > > Is anyone seriously working on paraview? It is still stalled at 3.4 while
> > > 3.6 is out, and there are a couple of serious bugs still open since ages.
> > AFAIK, Christophe is pretty busy these days and Ondrej is MIA. I think they will be happy to get some
> > help on this package.
> >
> > Sylvestre
> >
>
> Ok, I'm going to do a NMU for the most urgent bugs.
> I also saw that the git repo is missing the qt.dpatch file.

Knowing Christophe & Ondrej, if you want, I think they will be have you
to have you as a co-maintainer on this package.

Sylvestre



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Andreas Tille-5]

On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 01:06:16PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> Ok, I'm going to do a NMU for the most urgent bugs.
> I also saw that the git repo is missing the qt.dpatch file.

Once we are at it: Do we want to take the chance to take over the
package under Debian Science umbrella?

BTW, it seems that the watch file ist non-functional because the new
version is not reportet.

Kind regards

        Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Francesco P. Lovergine-3]

On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 01:25:50PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 01:06:16PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > Ok, I'm going to do a NMU for the most urgent bugs.
> > I also saw that the git repo is missing the qt.dpatch file.
>
> Once we are at it: Do we want to take the chance to take over the
> package under Debian Science umbrella?
>

It is already so, isn't it?

Maintainer: Debian Scientific Computing Team <pkg-scicomp-devel@...>
Uploaders: Christophe Prud'homme <prudhomm@...>, Ondrej Certik <ondrej@...>


--
Francesco P. Lovergine


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Andreas Tille-5]

On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 01:47:03PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>
> It is already so, isn't it?

No.

> Maintainer: Debian Scientific Computing Team <pkg-scicomp-devel@...>
> Uploaders: Christophe Prud'homme <prudhomm@...>, Ondrej Certik <ondrej@...>

We have a historical split between

    Debian Scientific Computing Team <pkg-scicomp-devel@...>

(in CC - please speak up somebody if I'm wrong with my statement below)
and

    Debian Science Team <debian-science-maintainers@...>

which is IMHO a very bad and confusing (see above) thing.  My personal
opinion about this is that pkg-scicomp is not as active as it was before
and I would really love if we would be able to consolidate things
according to the Debian Science Policy[1].

Kind regards

     Andreas.

[1] http://debian-science.alioth.debian.org/debian-science-policy.html

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Sylvestre Ledru-6]

Le vendredi 09 octobre 2009 à 14:01 +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :

> On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 01:47:03PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> We have a historical split between
>
>     Debian Scientific Computing Team <pkg-scicomp-devel@...>
>
> (in CC - please speak up somebody if I'm wrong with my statement below)
> and
>
>     Debian Science Team <debian-science-maintainers@...>
>
> which is IMHO a very bad and confusing (see above) thing.  My personal
> opinion about this is that pkg-scicomp is not as active as it was before
> and I would really love if we would be able to consolidate things
> according to the Debian Science Policy[1].

To be more precise, the pkg-scicomp started way before the debian-science packaging team. We started Debian Science
because many scientific packages don't belong to pkg-scicomp.

About the future, I have been in touch with Christophe (leader of
pkg-scicomp) and Manuel about merging both projects. I don't want to
talk for them but they both agree on this on the principle.

        The reasons are various:
        * many people are involved in both projects
        * debian-science has a scope which integrates pkg-scicomp
        * it is not obvious for new people which project contact to
        submit a
        package
        * it would avoid some duplicate work on administrative tasks
       
        Sylvestre


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Francesco P. Lovergine-3]

On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 02:09:28PM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:

> Le vendredi 09 octobre 2009 à 14:01 +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> > On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 01:47:03PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > We have a historical split between
> >
> >     Debian Scientific Computing Team <pkg-scicomp-devel@...>
> >
> > (in CC - please speak up somebody if I'm wrong with my statement below)
> > and
> >
> >     Debian Science Team <debian-science-maintainers@...>
> >
> > which is IMHO a very bad and confusing (see above) thing.  My personal
> > opinion about this is that pkg-scicomp is not as active as it was before
> > and I would really love if we would be able to consolidate things
> > according to the Debian Science Policy[1].
> To be more precise, the pkg-scicomp started way before the debian-science packaging team. We started Debian Science
> because many scientific packages don't belong to pkg-scicomp.
>
> About the future, I have been in touch with Christophe (leader of
> pkg-scicomp) and Manuel about merging both projects. I don't want to
> talk for them but they both agree on this on the principle.
>
>         The reasons are various:
>         * many people are involved in both projects
>         * debian-science has a scope which integrates pkg-scicomp
>         * it is not obvious for new people which project contact to
>         submit a
>         package
>         * it would avoid some duplicate work on administrative tasks
>        
>         Sylvestre
>
>

So what, in the meantime? I would avoid to do too many changes to the
package, at least I would fix RC bugs by NMU for current 3.4 series
and wait for some feedback from Cristophe.

--
Francesco P. Lovergine


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

Andreas

pkg-scicomp is active. I uploaded gmsh and some other packages recently. It is just that my agenda is extra full.

Others from pkg-scicomp have been working too.

Sylvestre and I have been discussing the merging of pkg-scicomp in Debian science.˙

I think that the way to go. I certainly don't have the time to do myself but I can give my support for a few things.

I claim that we have done a great job at packaging and disseminating scientific computing software. Some of them are major software in my area of expertise.

 I recognize however that we need one big umbrella for this to work in the long run and help for the entire  Debian/Science community

Now if there is a takeover of our packages by Debian-science, I would appreciate that is done gently and keep people

from pkg-scicomp in the loop. There are packages that are very important for my and my work (paraview, gmsh, trilinos, ....)

 

regarding paraview I have done the 3.6.1 package for some time now with a split of the package. I had issues with the 

python interface and hdf5. I should have perhaps updated 3.4 first. 

Best regards

C.

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Andreas Tille <andreas@...> wrote:

On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 01:47:03PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>
> It is already so, isn't it?

No.

> Maintainer: Debian Scientific Computing Team <pkg-scicomp-devel@...>
> Uploaders: Christophe Prud'homme <prudhomm@...>, Ondrej Certik <ondrej@...>

We have a historical split between

   Debian Scientific Computing Team <pkg-scicomp-devel@...>

(in CC - please speak up somebody if I'm wrong with my statement below)
and

   Debian Science Team <debian-science-maintainers@...>

which is IMHO a very bad and confusing (see above) thing.  My personal
opinion about this is that pkg-scicomp is not as active as it was before
and I would really love if we would be able to consolidate things
according to the Debian Science Policy[1].

Kind regards

    Andreas.

[1] http://debian-science.alioth.debian.org/debian-science-policy.html

--
http://fam-tille.de

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Andreas Tille-5]

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 11:46:15AM +0200, Christophe Prud'homme wrote:
> pkg-scicomp is active. I uploaded gmsh and some other packages recently. It
> is just that my agenda is extra full.
> Others from pkg-scicomp have been working too.

I was not accusing pkg-scicomp in general for beeing inactive.  There
were some packages coming into my focus which looked a bit orphaned.  I
would volunteer to help but I do not want to join just another team.  So
I suggested to take over these ones.
 
> Sylvestre and I have been discussing the merging of pkg-scicomp in Debian
> science.??
> I think that the way to go. I certainly don't have the time to do myself but
> I can give my support for a few things.
> I claim that we have done a great job at packaging and disseminating
> scientific computing software. Some of them are major software in my area of
> expertise.

Nobody has criticised the work of pkg-scicomp.  When we discussed the
packaging efforts og pkg-scicomp in the past (2007?) we tried to find a
common team for maintaining scientific software in Debian.  This failed
unfortunately.  I hope we can fix this smoothly.

>  I recognize however that we need one big umbrella for this to work in the
> long run and help for the entire  Debian/Science community
>
> Now if there is a takeover of our packages by Debian-science,

I would not call it "take over" - I would prefer the wording pkg-scicomp
people join Debian Science and we use a common repository.

> I would appreciate that is done gently and keep people
> from pkg-scicomp in the loop.

Yes, sure.  I always tried to CC pkg-scicomp (I might have forgotten to
CC in a few cases) and if I did not sounded gentle - well that's my
fault and I would apologize for this.

> There are packages that are very important for
> my and my work (paraview, gmsh, trilinos, ....)

I *really*, *really* hope that the *people* will merge to Debian Science
and not only the packages.  Nobody really want's to highjack packages
from people who are actively working on them.  It is juat easier to use
a single repository and watch one mailing list for problems than two
with quite the same scope.
 
I hope that I did not stepped on somebodies shoes.  It was not intended.
My goal is to find the best way to maintain scientific software in Debian.

Kind regards

      Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[malat]

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@...> wrote:

> Le vendredi 09 octobre 2009 à 14:01 +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
>> On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 01:47:03PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>> We have a historical split between
>>
>>     Debian Scientific Computing Team <pkg-scicomp-devel@...>
>>
>> (in CC - please speak up somebody if I'm wrong with my statement below)
>> and
>>
>>     Debian Science Team <debian-science-maintainers@...>
>>
>> which is IMHO a very bad and confusing (see above) thing.  My personal
>> opinion about this is that pkg-scicomp is not as active as it was before
>> and I would really love if we would be able to consolidate things
>> according to the Debian Science Policy[1].
> To be more precise, the pkg-scicomp started way before the debian-science packaging team. We started Debian Science
> because many scientific packages don't belong to pkg-scicomp.
>
> About the future, I have been in touch with Christophe (leader of
> pkg-scicomp) and Manuel about merging both projects. I don't want to
> talk for them but they both agree on this on the principle.
>
>        The reasons are various:
>        * many people are involved in both projects
>        * debian-science has a scope which integrates pkg-scicomp
>        * it is not obvious for new people which project contact to
>        submit a
>        package
>        * it would avoid some duplicate work on administrative tasks

At the same time would it be possible to move the vtk package under
the debian-science umbrella too ?
It has been *extremely* hard over the last week to communicate in
between Denis Barbier, Dominique Belhachemi, A. Maitland Bottoms,
Steve M. Robbins. VTK is really a central package and a mailing list
would really help here.

Thanks for your attention,
--
Mathieu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Sylvestre Ledru-6]

Le lundi 19 octobre 2009 à 14:24 +0200, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit :

> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@...> wrote:
> > Le vendredi 09 octobre 2009 à 14:01 +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> >> On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 01:47:03PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> >> We have a historical split between
> >>
> >>     Debian Scientific Computing Team <pkg-scicomp-devel@...>
> >>
> >> (in CC - please speak up somebody if I'm wrong with my statement below)
> >> and
> >>
> >>     Debian Science Team <debian-science-maintainers@...>
> >>
> >> which is IMHO a very bad and confusing (see above) thing.  My personal
> >> opinion about this is that pkg-scicomp is not as active as it was before
> >> and I would really love if we would be able to consolidate things
> >> according to the Debian Science Policy[1].
> > To be more precise, the pkg-scicomp started way before the debian-science packaging team. We started Debian Science
> > because many scientific packages don't belong to pkg-scicomp.
> >
> > About the future, I have been in touch with Christophe (leader of
> > pkg-scicomp) and Manuel about merging both projects. I don't want to
> > talk for them but they both agree on this on the principle.
> >
> >        The reasons are various:
> >        * many people are involved in both projects
> >        * debian-science has a scope which integrates pkg-scicomp
> >        * it is not obvious for new people which project contact to
> >        submit a
> >        package
> >        * it would avoid some duplicate work on administrative tasks
>
> At the same time would it be possible to move the vtk package under
> the debian-science umbrella too ?
> It has been *extremely* hard over the last week to communicate in
> between Denis Barbier, Dominique Belhachemi, A. Maitland Bottoms,
> Steve M. Robbins. VTK is really a central package and a mailing list
> would really help here.

If the current maintainers agree and people in the team are going to
help, yes, it would make sense...

Sylvestre



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Andreas Tille-6]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 02:24:01PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> At the same time would it be possible to move the vtk package under
> the debian-science umbrella too ?

The decision to put a package under group maintenance is usually done
by the maintainer himself.

> It has been *extremely* hard over the last week to communicate in
> between Denis Barbier, Dominique Belhachemi, A. Maitland Bottoms,
> Steve M. Robbins. VTK is really a central package and a mailing list
> would really help here.

Nobody will prevent you from using the group as maintainer if
A. Maitland Bottoms agrees to this procedure.

Kind regards

      Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[smr99]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 02:24:01PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:

> It has been *extremely* hard over the last week to communicate in
> between Denis Barbier, Dominique Belhachemi, A. Maitland Bottoms,
> Steve M. Robbins. VTK is really a central package and a mailing list
> would really help here.

Huh?  Was someone trying to communicate with me last week about VTK?  
Sorry, didn't receive any email about it.

-S