On Sat, 2017-01-28 at 16:18 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > [Dropped personal addresses, added Debian Octave Group] > > Hi, > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 10:59:55AM +0000, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Then, it shall be dropped in the next iteration of the packaging. We don't > > need more volatile pieces of software being packaged. > > BTW, if the octave module has some user base it might make sense to just > keep the octave part from the 2.5 version. In the Debian changelog the > package seems to have maintained initially by the octave group - may be > these should be involved into the discussion. > > > > > 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. > > > > We would at least get feedback from the builders. > > Definitely. > > > > > 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). > > > > Why not, although if upstream is not so responsive as you made it sound, > > then I am not sure what you will be able to achieve. > > > > Reminds me of our situation with FreeImage. > > Finally we somehow need to follow upstream releases to be able to > package dependant software. It makes sense to make them aware that > distributions are relying on some standards. There is a Fedora > Scientific SIG and probably other distributions and making clear > that it is a common requirement would have advantages - even for > users who do not relay on distributed packages. > > > Moving forward, I will noowner the ITA and let whoever is in charge take its > > ownership. Please communicate your progress there and on the team's > > mailing-list.
I have just set #798331 to noowner. Please follow the package adoption guidelines in https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq. Cheers, Ghis
