retitle 751718 gnudatalanguage: Please enable building Python GDL modules kthxbye
Hi Sylwester, Sylwester Arabas wrote: > On 15/06/14 23:32, Axel Beckert wrote: > >Sylwester Arabas wrote: > >>Currently Debian offers a package with a standalone version of GDL - > >>GNU Data Language (GDL is an open-source implementation of the IDL - > >>Interactive Data Language interpreter). > >> > >>It is also possible to build GDL as a Python module. > > > >Is that built from the same source tar ball or do we need to download > >a separate source tar ball for that? > > Yes - the same source. The only thing that has to be changed is the > CMake's -DPYTHON_MODULE=ON flag. No "make install" rules are > available for the Python module, though. Ok, then it's technically not an RFP (that's bascially only for requesting new source packages), hence retitling the bug report accordingly. >From your description this should be no issue. > >P.S.: Any progress with http://sf.net/p/gnudatalanguage/bugs/594/ ? > >Without that being fixed, it IMHO doesn't make much sense to put > >effort into new packaging features. > > Why? This issue concerns only powerpc and kfreebsd Exactly that's the point. Both are officially supported Debian architectures. Bugs on these architectures are equivalent in severity to bugs on more popular architectures like e.g. i386 and amd64 -- at least if the application is (or was) available on these architectures. (Powerpc is btw. Debian's fourth most popular architecture, with only 20% less users than the third most popular architecture, armel.) GDL already got removed from Debian Testing because of that issue. And as Alain wrote in http://sourceforge.net/p/gnudatalanguage/bugs/594/#2ec1, GDL won't be in the next Debian release unless this is fixed in some way. Not sure how that removal (or GDL not getting into the next Debian Stable) affects Ubuntu. > - apparently, we have no userbase there... Are you sure? It worked previously on these architectures and GDL is available on these architectures in Debian Stable, so you can't really be sure that you don't have anyone who runs GDL on these architectures. Those users likely won't mention the architecture they're using as long as it works. Unfortunately there's no package-per-architecture data available on http://popcon.debian.org/ despite some already asked for such data: https://bugs.debian.org/395926 > (I'm also not 100% sure if the problem is > inside GDL - it's a linking issue that appears on two out of >10 > arch only, the error messages point to code that was present in the > previous version). Do you know anyone using Debian with kfreebsd or > powerpc that we could ask to look into it? Basically any Debian developer has access to machines of any architectures. I do have kfreebsd-i386 at home (with GDL installed btw.) and a powerpc machine, too, but that one's currently offline (needs a new harddisk), so I'd use one of Debian's official porterboxes there. But as written in the past, I'm not really a user of GDL, just an administrator whose users use GDL, so I wouldn't count myself as "user base on kfreebsd". :-) > Of course, I do see the point of trying out the source on different > machines (and fixing this issue), It's not "trying", it's "offering". > but I would argue that such problems should not stop the vast > majority of users from getting new features or updates. Debian makes no difference between all the officially supported architectures. If an architecure falls too much behind, it's dropped from the list of officially supported architectures -- as happened with Sparc recently. But PowerPC and kfreebsd-* are doing well, and powerpc seems also one of Ubuntu's architectures. There is though one possibility to close the bug report without fixing the real issue: Changing the list of architectures from "all" to only selected architectures and request to remove 0.9.3 on all other architectures. But that's a hassle if new architectures pop up as each of them has to be added manually. So if there's a chance to fix that issue _properly_, I'd definitely prefer that. > Mostly due to Ubuntu, keeping the Debian package updated and > feature-rich is very important for us! My focus is definitely on Debian. If issues reported in Ubuntu can be fixed in Debian, that's fine, because it likely also raises the quality of a package in Debian. Oh, and just for the record, gnudatalanguage 0.9.4 failed to build from source on powerpc in Ubuntu, too: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnudatalanguage/0.9.4-1ubuntu2/+build/5955678 Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE `- | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
