Hi, On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 03:57:40PM +1100, James Tocknell wrote: > Dunno if you saw it, but I had packaged 2.6 - 2.7 inclusive (plus the old > versions) at https://github.com/aragilar/debian-packaging-sundials.
I'm sorry, but I do not see anything outside Debian Science git. I'd be super happy if we would start to join forces on https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/sundials.git > Like Dima, I'm currently using the packaging, so it should work. I thought it would be the sense of having a common packaging team to not duplicate the work. > The reasoning for waiting till after the freeze is there's a number of > things we need to sort out with upstream, and given their responsiveness > trying to do this before the freeze seemed impractical. The issues as I see > it are: > 1. The matlab/octave interface seems poorly supported (upstream may or may > not drop it entirely), it uses a custom build script written in matlab > (which requires modification to work with octave), which means we don't get > multiarch easily. We could have dropped the interface, but it currently > works (afaik), and the real solution (split it out and make it a proper > octave package on octave-forge) would be time consuming and probably > wouldn't happen before the freeze. > 2. Upstream has broken the ABI in every release without bumping the so > number (this is the most time consuming part of packaging sundials), and > don't seem to think/be aware that this is a problem. My packaging went > ahead and did its own thing (given upstream's response), but that's not > really a viable strategy in the long term. I also raised the ABI breaks on > Fedora's bugtracker, but nothing's come of that. > 3. There are no real tests, there's some examples, we'd need to ask > upstream for tests (if they have any). > 4. Upstream does not communicate their plans, nor have a have an open > bugtracker: for example, the first I knew of the 2.7 release (as opposed to > them doing a bugfix release) was when they announced it on their mailing > list. > 5. Upstream switched from using autotools to cmake, which lead them to drop > sundials-config (script which produces the correct link flags) > . As part of my packaging, I've created pkg-config files, but it doesn't > help if upstream doesn't adopt them (or chooses to name them differently > given the different configurations possible). > > I did consider uploading something to experimental in the mean time, but > given there's a very real chance that what we uploaded to experimental > would not match what would result from discussions with upstream, the > package wouldn't of use to anybody, and probably create more confusion. > > If you do want get sundials into experimental, I'm happy to help, but I > think efforts spent on packaging sundials are best used to get upstream on > board with being an easier project to package (and to coordinate with > Fedora and other distros so that upstream sees this as a push from distros, > not specifically from Debian). Thanks for the clarification. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
