Hi Bas,
[ And first off thanks for all you work -- I do of course rely on it in
e.g. backtesting all possible Rcpp, RcppArmadillo, ... changes for my own
upstream R packages on a Debian testing box. Having all of gdal, proj,
geos, ... in good shape is huge. And a maintainer of (many, but mostly
smaller ones) packages I know how much work it is. ]
On 28 December 2021 at 16:41, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
| On 12/28/21 15:39, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > 4) TileDB 1.7.7 in Debian -- There is a packaging attempt of a more minimal
| > TileDB configuration in unstable, with a number of build issues on other
| > platforms. We have since changed quite a few things in TileDB (i.e. no more
| > TBB) and had a number of releases. It may make sense to revive this, but
when
| > I tried to contact Adam who did this I never heard back. Is anybody in
| > contact with him?
|
| While the tiledb package is in this sorry state I won't consider
| enabling the support in other packages like gdal & pdal.
My (long) email really tried to get at two things:
- that existing/old tiledb package may need help (but I didn't go there yet)
- we really need more features in the tiledb package (notably s3/could support)
We can go back to these.
| If you want to get your changes into the packages in Debian, you should
| consider salvaging the tiledb package.
Well I have been here 25+ years as a maintainre and mostly tried to be
non-confrontational without taking ("stealing") somebody else's package.
|
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#package-salvaging
But I can and will take a look. Thanks for the pointer.
| Your comments regarding builds suggests that tiledb isn't very stable
| yet, so even if the package get actively maintained, building on top of
| it may not be wise.
Hm, can you help me here and be more specific what section or sentence gave
you that impression?
Because nothing could be further from the truth. We have many users and
customers in research and industry and cherish API (and data) stability. As
we value Open Source (the tiledb package and the R, Python, ... bindings
are MIT licensed) and our paying customers on extensions.
What Adam packaged was from March 2020: about 22 months old. A long time for
an active software project driven by a startup. We refactor internals (that
is how TBB is now no longer needed) and we may change the API maintaining
deprecated access points 'for quite some time'. It really works, is used, and
could fit. Rate of change may be a concern, but our key releases come every
few months (we 2.0.* to 2.5.* since the initial packaging) and are on a
frequency of many other software projects.
Long story short, and I apologize for not making that more clear in the
initial email, I was not sending it as "bug report" asking you to turn tiledb
on in gdal or pdal today. I know we do not have the components in place. It
was a public "hi and how is it going -- does anybody want to work on tiledb
in Debian" email. I am not a point where I can do this for work (engineering
is more beholden to other build and distribution systems) and I do not have
_that_ much time myself with 180+ Debian packages as maintainer and also 60+
CRAN packages as author. But I would love to chip in a team.
So with that: anybody else here interested in brushing up tiledb support,
both for the (narrowly configure) existing package and for (broader) support
extending its features?
Cheers, Dirk
--
https://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org
