[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: netCDF Strategy

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.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: