Hi, On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 09:43:26PM +0200, Marcin Dulak wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Michael Banck <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 04:36:23PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > Apropos gpaw-setups: Since I can run `gbp buildpackage` in my clone her > > > I did so but pbuilder was running into the following error: > > > > > > pbuilder-satisfydepends-dummy : Depends: gpaw-setups which is a > > > virtual package. > > > > > > It seems you need to package gpaw-setups first if this is a > > > build-dependency of gpaw. (BTW, please remove the ',' at the end > > > of the last Build-Depends.) > > > > I assume those pseudopotentials are required to run the test suite? > > > > In that case, what we've been doing with other packages is just shipping > > the minimum required data files to run the test cases as patches in the > > Debian packaging, this might work for GPAW as well. > > > > That depends on course on how many different PPs the testsuite needs, if > > the answer is "most of them", then yeah, Build-Depending on gpaw-setups > > sounds ok. > > in my opinion the software should be shipped functional, i.e. the > whole release of gpaw-setups.
I was talking about shipping the necessary pseudo-potentials for the testsuite in the gpaw source (but not binary) package, and not Build-Depending on gpaw-setups. Of course the separate gpaw-whatever data package would ship the whole set. That said, a more unified distribution-wide approach to pseudo-potentials wouldn't hurt either, I have the feeling that quite a few are duplicated amongst packages. But that is for another discussion. > > In any case, I think the binary package should just be called > > "gpaw-data" in line with other scientific packages. It's fine to keep > > the source package name as gpaw-setups, of course. > > let's keep gpaw-setups. This name is known to all the users of the program, This is purely a package naming scheme issue, the users shouldn't need to know about this, it should just work after running 'apt-get install gpaw'. > and gpaw-setups packaged under the same name on Fedora/CentOS. There's lots of packages which are called differently in Debian and Fedora so that isn't a valid point, either. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
