OK, so I guess we have hijacked this thread for a discussion of Torque packaging. Sorry about that! I hope the OP is content with the feedback so far, and perhaps will try out torque and help debug the packages ;-)
Steffen Moeller wrote: > Yes. We are both in the pkg-escience.alioth.debian.org project, to which I > would very much > like to welcome you, too. I have just added you to the developers, to save > you a few mouse > clicks. The previous upload to Debian was based on the 2.3 ubuntu branch, > which is > Morten's work, plus a few ideas from our Debian branch. So, yes, we have been > communicating a lot about it and basically only waited for a new version to > appear. Morten > is somewhat MIA over the last weeks, but looking at the calendar, I should > not be too > surprised about that. We have thought of coming up with a completely unified > effort for > 2.4, once it is out. Morten did not like the idea to disturb current installs > of 2.3 for > an update. > > So, when you look at it, please feel remembered that the harmony with current > Torque 2.3 > Ubuntu installs was a major point. Yes, I have been somewhat in summer-vacation mode and I always find I have to re-boot my brain starting to think about Torque & licenses and stuff. Very painful procedure :-) I merged my Ubuntu packaging with Steffen & al's into the svn trunk containing the 2.4 branch [1]. At the time, we were a few days before Feature Freeze for jaunty, and since I could not get the merged version 2.4 to compile on my jaunty sbuilder, I decided to do a straight update of the package on Ubuntu to the 2.3.6 branch which compiled and I knew was working. It was important to do something because a number of show-stopping bugs were reported on LP (the upload closed about 8 of them). In the merge, a number of changes has been made, including the renaming of torque-dev to libtorque2-dev and also a couple of other binary packages. Now I see that Steffen also has submitted the 2.3.6 branch to Debian, I have to go back and study some of his emails over the summer to see exactly what the reason was. Regarding the license, we've discussed it at length. In Ubuntu, the package is in "multiverse" which I gather is the equivalent of Debian "non-free". In my opinion, the torque software must be considered to be covered by the license text included in the distributed tarball. For your reference, I enclose as an attacment a copy of a mail I sent in january to Steffen & Michael where the various versions of the Torque license (all called OpenPBS 2.3. I also wrote an email to one of the Torque devs (attached) but I never got a reply. I dunno, perhaps all this just adds to the confusion :-) Cheers, Morten PS: Welcome to the team, Jordi! -- Morten Kjeldgaard, asc. professor, MSc, PhD BiRC - Bioinformatics Research Center, Aarhus University C. F. Møllers Alle, Building 1110, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. Lab +45 8942 3130 * Fax +45 8942 3077 * Home +45 8618 8180 Mobile +45 5186 0147 * http://www.bioxray.au.dk/~mok [1] http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-escience/torque/trunk
TorqueLicense.eml
Description: application/mimearchive
Torque_OpenPBS license.eml
Description: application/mimearchive
