Re: netcdf packages

On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 01:41:09PM +0200, Nico Schlömer wrote: > Everything that is interesting in the current netcdf-bin is included > in the C-library of netCDF. The only binaries included in the C++ and > Fortran builds are configuration assistants that are losing their > significance in the new

Re: netcdf packages

Everything that is interesting in the current netcdf-bin is included in the C-library of netCDF. The only binaries included in the C++ and Fortran builds are configuration assistants that are losing their significance in the new CMake builds anyways. Hence, I'd say it's reasonable to make netcdfc-b

Re: netcdf packages

Hi, On 28 March 2014 09:20:01 CET, Dominique Dumont wrote: >On Thursday 27 March 2014 22:21:55 Nico Schlömer wrote: >The question is: how to avoid breaking the above package when upgrading >netcdf >to netcdf-c, netcdf-fortran, netcdf-cxx ? What about declaring netcdf-bin as dummy package dependi

Re: netcdf packages

On Thursday 27 March 2014 22:21:55 Nico Schlömer wrote: > The question remains on how we can move this forward in a sensible > way. One possibility is to split the existing netcdf package into > three separate ones netcdf-c, netcdf-fortran, netcdf-cxx, to reflect > the upstream structure. > > What

netcdf packages

Hi all, the Debian packages for netCDF are currently at 4.1.3, a version released some three years ago . A bug report was filed against this a few months back

Re: new batch of netcdf packages

On Wednesday 31 January 2007 22:49, Warren Turkal wrote: > Clearly, my signature is messed up somehow. Here's another shot. Gpg verifies the signature on the file itself. I think my mail client is wrapping lines and causing the sig to fail. One more try: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash:

Re: new batch of netcdf packages

On Wednesday 31 January 2007 16:31, Warren Turkal wrote: > Here's a new netcdf package updated to the beta6. It has brand new sonames. > Please check it out. Clearly, my signature is messed up somehow. Here's another shot. -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 31 J

new batch of netcdf packages

Here's a new netcdf package updated to the beta6. It has brand new sonames. Please check it out. -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Format: 1.7 Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:21:29 -0700 Source: netcdf Binary: libnetcdf-dev libnetcdf++4 netcdf-bin libnetcdf4 netcdfg-dev Architecture: sourc

Re: netcdf packages

Warren Turkal wrote: > On Friday 15 December 2006 17:22, Warren Turkal wrote: >> Known issues: >> * haven't bumped soname for C++ yet. I want to see if upstream will do >> that. > > Ed from upstream had a question: > > *** > I'm not too strong yet on how these numbers are used, but last time I

Re: netcdf packages

On Friday 15 December 2006 16:40, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: > While I think of it, please add cfortran as a Build-Depends, and in > debian/rules do something to ensure that the build happens using the > copy of cfortran.h in Debian, to ensure consistency.  Probably the > easiest way would be just to

Re: netcdf packages

On Friday 15 December 2006 17:22, Warren Turkal wrote: > Known issues: > * haven't bumped soname for C++ yet. I want to see if upstream will do > that. Ed from upstream had a question: *** I'm not too strong yet on how these numbers are used, but last time I looked into it the conclusion was to

Re: netcdf packages

On Friday 15 December 2006 16:40, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: > Warren Turkal wrote: > > On Thursday 14 December 2006 11:09, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: > >> 1) Why did you make the libnetcdf++3 package into a dummy package and > >> move the C++ bindings into the libnetcdf3 package? ÂIf the soname of the >

Re: netcdf packages

Warren Turkal wrote: > On Thursday 14 December 2006 11:09, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: >> 1) Why did you make the libnetcdf++3 package into a dummy package and >> move the C++ bindings into the libnetcdf3 package? ÂIf the soname of the >> C++ package needs to evolve faster than that of the C/FORTRAN b

Re: netcdf packages

On Friday 15 December 2006 16:20, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: > Another thing I noticed is that the old .debs have a single file > libnetcdf.so.3.6.1 including both C and FORTRAN code, while your new > .debs have separated it out into two files, libnetcdf.so.3.6.2 and > libnetcdff.so.3.6.2.  This is go

Re: netcdf packages

Warren Turkal wrote: > On Thursday 14 December 2006 11:09, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: >> This is weird: if you install your new packages of netcdf, the existing >> kst-plugins package (from Sid) on your system should automatically pick >> up the new libnetcdf_c++.so.3 library and function properly,

Re: netcdf packages

On Thursday 14 December 2006 11:09, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: > 1) Why did you make the libnetcdf++3 package into a dummy package and > move the C++ bindings into the libnetcdf3 package?  If the soname of the > C++ package needs to evolve faster than that of the C/FORTRAN bindings, > as I speculated

Re: netcdf packages

I wanted to reply to the two parts of your mail separately, so please check out this one and the next one. On Thursday 14 December 2006 11:09, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: > think it must have at least been built with the new g++: > > benjo (sid)[2]:~% apt-cache show libnetcdf++3| grep Depends > Depe

Re: netcdf packages

Hi Warren, Warren Turkal wrote: > On Wednesday 13 December 2006 10:55, Warren Turkal wrote: >> I think that we should just go for it. W00T! OK, you've convinced me that compiling with gfortran shouldn't be a problem. (But please try to make sure that maintainers of any new packages introduced d

Re: netcdf packages

On Wednesday 13 December 2006 10:55, Warren Turkal wrote: > I think that we should just go for it. W00T! KST can actually plot netcdf graphs after the upgrade in library. It just crashed on all my netcdf files before. This is another reason to upgrade the library. Unfortunately, it lookes like

Re: netcdf packages

On Tuesday 12 December 2006 18:41, Warren Turkal wrote: > Uploaded to [1]. Another new package release @ [1]. This is the first set that is totally lintian clean. Changes: netcdf (3.6.2-beta4-1~pre3) unstable; urgency=low . * added symlinks for libraries in /usr/lib * changed conflicts s

Re: netcdf packages

On Tuesday 12 December 2006 19:35, you wrote: > Regarding the use of gfortran -- are you aware that g77 and gfortran > produce object code with somewhat incompatible ABIs? See my previous > emails on this topic here: Yes, I am aware. Since there is neither a fortran policy nor a good record of be

Re: netcdf packages

Warren Turkal wrote: > netcdf (3.6.2-beta4~pre1) unstable; urgency=low > . >* New maintainer: Warren Turkal >* Completely repackaged with cdbs (closes: #378610). >* Enabled Fortran 90 support by compiling with Gfortran. (closes: #219592, > #278739) Hi Warren, Regarding the use

Re: netcdf packages

On Tuesday 12 December 2006 16:22, Daniel Baumann wrote: > not in copyright, no. I removed that paragraph. > if you upload your new packages, we can go then through them piece by > piece tomorrow. Uploaded to [1]. Some notes of things already addressed: 1) I have already deleted watch.ex post 1

Re: netcdf packages

Warren Turkal wrote: > So, should the prior package author attribution be included or not? not in copyright, no. if you upload your new packages, we can go then through them piece by piece tomorrow. -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: [EMAIL P

Re: netcdf packages

On Tuesday 12 December 2006 10:06, schönfeld / in-medias-res.com wrote: > Yes, thats the fact i wasn't aware of when i wrote my comments. In this > case i agree with you. If - and only if - Warren totally reworked > everything (exceptions for the name of the package and changelog) it > shouldn't be

Re: netcdf packages

Thibaut Paumard wrote: > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:34:02 -0700 > Warren Turkal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] >> "The software was previously packaged for Debian by Karl Sackett, >> Brian Mays, >> and others. This package is a complete reengineering of of the >> packaging to >> bring the pack

Re: netcdf packages

On Monday 11 December 2006 15:53, Warren Turkal wrote: > New version (3.6.2-beta4~pre1) at [1]. This version sorts before the last > one so you will have to manually remove the prior packages I posted if you > used apt* to install them. > > Here's the changelog entry. > >  netcdf (3.6.2-beta4~pre1)

Re: netcdf packages

IANADD (but I feel like arguing anyway) On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:34:02 -0700 Warren Turkal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Monday 11 December 2006 03:42, Patrick Schönfeld wrote: * debian/copyright: * IMO you should mention the ones who previous did packaging "The software was previously packa

Re: netcdf packages

On Monday 11 December 2006 15:33, Warren Turkal wrote: > It is running through debuild-pbuilder right now. New version (3.6.2-beta4~pre1) at [1]. This version sorts before the last one so you will have to manually remove the prior packages I posted if you used apt* to install them. Here's the c

Re: netcdf packages

On Monday 11 December 2006 14:33, Florent Rougon wrote: > Warren Turkal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Okay, the build deps now look like: > > Build-Depends: cdbs, debhelper (>= 5), autotools-dev, gfortran, tex, > > texi2dvi > > Ugh, what's this 'tex' package? Well, I haven't posted the new versio

Re: netcdf packages

Warren Turkal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay, the build deps now look like: > Build-Depends: cdbs, debhelper (>= 5), autotools-dev, gfortran, tex, texi2dvi Ugh, what's this 'tex' package? Before blindly doing what others tell you, you'd better think a little bit (I'm sure Patrick didn't want

Re: netcdf packages

On Monday 11 December 2006 12:35, Felipe Sateler wrote: > You can use the ~ suffix, as in 3.6.2-beta4~pre1. These versions will > evaluate lower than 3.6.2-beta4. Thanks for the info. I am guessing that I would version it like 3.6.2-beta4~pre1-1 then? wt -- Warren Turkal, Research Associate III

Re: netcdf packages

Warren Turkal wrote: >> Version of your package results in a lintian warning, because your >> version string is not like it should be in Debian. Your version should >> be foo-x.x.x (another .x is for NMUs). > > I want the package to be sorted before a real -1 release in the debian > archive so th

Re: netcdf packages

On Monday 11 December 2006 05:34, schönfeld / in-medias-res.com wrote: > General: > In my other mail i told you that i think it is bad to use a pre-beta. > Now that i got this package to compile my impression is hardened because > while compiling there do occur about several hundred of warnings. Ok

Re: netcdf packages

On Monday 11 December 2006 03:42, Patrick Schönfeld wrote: > * Remove all files from debian/ with .ex ending. They are example files > and if you don't need them, then you should not include them. If you > need them, then rename and edit them and whatever it needs to do further. I was evaluating t

Re: netcdf packages

ld be foo-x.x.x (another .x is for NMUs). Best Regards Patrick Warren Turkal wrote: > Debian Mentors, > > I have worked tonight to produce new netcdf packages for the NetCDF > libraries. > They are located at [1]. I would like some feedback on them. They are based > on cdbs.

Re: netcdf packages

Hi Warren, Warren Turkal wrote: > I have worked tonight to produce new netcdf packages for the > NetCDF libraries. They are located at [1]. I would like some feedback > on them. They are based on cdbs. > [2] is a link to a WNPP bug about this package. I would like to > adopt

netcdf packages

Debian Mentors, I have worked tonight to produce new netcdf packages for the NetCDF libraries. They are located at [1]. I would like some feedback on them. They are based on cdbs. [2] is a link to a WNPP bug about this package. I would like to adopt the package, if possible. Thanks, wt [1