On 06/08/10 at 10:44 -0400, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: > On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net> > wrote: > > On 06/08/10 at 07:55 -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote: > >> According to > >> https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=sagemath;ver=3.0.5dfsg-5.1;arch=alpha;stamp=1263382158 > >> the build of sagemath 3.0.5dfsg-5.1 failed due to a missing dependency on > >> libiml-dev . This package is now available. Could someone please reschedule > >> a build on alpha for sagemath? > > > > That's probably not necessary, as the removal of sagemath has been > > requested (#573538). > > > > - Lucas > > > > Hi Lucas, > > I am interested in seeing sagemath in Debian. I'd like to package it > for Debian with the help of others (of course). I am also willing to > spend time, maintain and collaborate with upstream. Based on the > discussions in bug:573538 there are many others who are interested to > help get sagemath into Debian. > > Here is my approach. It is based on the discussions from debconf10 > talks yesterday. > > 1) My first step is to get one version working on all the releasable > architectures in unstable. > > 2) Have a git repository set up as Andreas Tille suggested on > debian-science to make it easy for people to collaborate. With a > monstrous package like sagemath, we really need a team than just a > single person. > > 3) Next, I want to go step by step from 3.0.5dfsg-5.1 all the way upto > 4.5.1. So, I want to work on packaging 3.0.6 instead of 4.5.1 . Sure, > the upstream may not like it. But this way we will have a solid > understanding of what actually are the dependencies on the package. > > 4) One of the points that was brought up in yesterday's discussions is > regression tests and unit tests. For example, even though sagemath > claims you need package foo version 4.5, may be in reality you just > need foo-3.0. If foo-3.0 is available in Debian unstable but not > foo-4.5 then we are in decent shape. > > Anyway, I am probably talking very naively without realizing the > complexities involved. But I am willing to take the first small > step...
My understanding is that upstream is very unhappy with the fact that Debian is shipping an old version, as it generates support requests for something that they don't want to support (3.0.5 was released on 2008-07-11). Removing the package from unstable doesn't prevent you from working on the package. It's just a way to clean up Debian. It will be very easy to re-upload when you will have something that builds in i386 and amd64 (though it might be better to upload to experimental, as I doubt that you will have something in a releasable state before a few months). As for the strategy of working on the 3.X release or on the 4.X release, I don't think that we should try to release something which is not closer to the latest upstream release than 3.0.5. But I can't comment on working incrementally from 3.0.5 vs working on 4.X directly. - Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
