On 01/24/2015 06:08 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: [...] >> On 01/17/2015 01:02 AM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: >>> libCF is still TODO > >> ITP: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=775584 > > I have basic packaging ready for libCF, but we should decide on the > source package name. Initially I used just 'libcf' too, but then opted > to change it to 'netcdf-libcf' because it's so closely related to > netcdf in general, and because libcf is split out from the netcdf package. > I prefer netcdf-libcf, keeping the package names uniform. netcdf-python will be the next one (the scientific python source calls its python-netcdf). > Unfortunately there are only a couple of alpha and one beta release > published upstream, and it doesn't look very actively developed. So I > have my doubts about the usefulness of keeping libCF in Debian. > Yes - the beta had the latest date, but it was a couple years ago. Maybe we should ask upstream? Packaging it and contacting them may gain it some traction. > One of the outstanding issues I have with the libCF packaging is that > it builds both libcf.so.1 and libcf_src.so.1 and the difference is not > clear to me. libcf in netcdf 4.1.3 only has a single version of the > library. We can ask about this while we are at it. Cheers, Ross
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature