Re: fun with casa
Hi Sergio,
I guess you wouldn't mind to get a reply to the list.
Sergio Gelato <Sergio.Gelato@astro.su.se> writes:
> * heroxbd@gentoo.org [2014-10-04 23:04:48 +0900]:
>> CASA downloaded from
>>
>> http://casa.nrao.edu/casa_obtaining.shtml
>>
>> is scary. It extracts to 2.4GiB and integrates:
>>
>> 1. casacore
>
> The last time I looked at it (CASA 4.0.1) this was a fork of casacore
> with enough API differences from the Google-hosted version to make
> it completely impractical to switch.
Even more scary.
> I didn't complete my packaging effort for lack of time. (I had already
> packaged casacore --- for internal use so I didn't have to worry as much
> about licensing issues as one must for inclusion into Debian proper.)
You might have already seen my post. Would you like to have a look at
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debian-astro/packages/casacore.git
https://mentors.debian.net/package/casacore
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/casacore/casacore_1.7.0-1.dsc
to check if any feature was missing compared to your internal package?
>> 2. boost
>> 3. qt4
>> 4. python + numpy + matplotlib + ipython
>
> Yes, astronomical software distributors have this tendency to bundle a whole
> environment, causing headaches for those researchers who want to write, say,
> Python glue around tools from multiple sources. (Which bundle's Python
> interpreter shall they use?)
That's a sad state. And that's the opportunity an astrophysical Debian
blend fits into the picture.
>> - has anyone tried to substitute the bundled libraries with those from
>> the OS?
>
> I've looked into switching to "Google's" casacore and concluded it would be
> way too much work. I hope that the developers of CASA haven't modified Boost,
> Qt or Python to nearly the same extent.
Hope so.
>> - has anyone tried to compile casa from scratch, like documented in
>>
>> https://safe.nrao.edu/wiki/bin/view/Software/CasaDevUbuntu ?
>
> I've tried to compile it from scratch, had to fix a few bugs that were
> causing compile-time errors but nothing really major. Still, that made
> me wonder how they had managed to generate their binaries; I doubt they
> could have used the source code exactly as tagged in the repository.
Or these is only one in the team who knows how to make a release
manually.
> I didn't complete the project due to other, more pressing/rewarding
> tasks.
Do you have something intermediate to share? Maybe a note on how to
compile, what to patch, or just a build log?
>> We might at least strip off the bundled libraries to persuade upstream
>> to release lighter weight tarballs.
>
> Persuading upstream? I wouldn't hold my breath. There is a logic to this
> madness of bundling everything: it makes support easier for them. Maybe
> if one were to fund them…
He who bundles everything want to make their tarball insensitive to the
host environment. That's poorman's "portability". And that makes
packaging such a nightmare so that there is no distribution shipping
their software. And They have to bundle even more.
We might be able to do something to this endless loop. But I am not
sure if it worths the time.
Cheers,
Benda
Reply to: