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

Re: netCDF Strategy

On 03/19/2015 11:23 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> In the mean time there are new upstream releases for ncview, and we
> still have two outstanding ITPs for netcdf-python:
>  ITP: netcdf-python
>  https://bugs.debian.org/778417
>  ITP: python-netcdf4
>  https://bugs.debian.org/730666
> There are some concerns raised in the second ITP about the various
> python netcdf packages that are also discussed in the first ITP. We
> need to resolve this and preferably keep only the best one.

Thanks Bas, I wasn't aware of the 2nd ITP. Actually, both are for the
same source, but we chose to quote different upstream contacts & webpages.

However, Andreas Hilboll may be unaware of the existing python-netcdf
package in Scientific Python.

In the end of the discussions of the first ITP, I did not get any
objections to proceeding with netcdf-python. There appeared no reason
not to have both this package and the Scientific Python one in Debian.
The netcdf-python one seems to have a fuller implementation of the
latest v4 of the nedcdf format. And the upstream for the Scientific
Python version might consider dropping his one in the future if the
other one would fulfil the needs of his reverse dependencies (some of
which he maintains himself).

I will make a note on the 2nd ITP, recommending that Andreas closes it,
give a link to our ITP and ask if he wants to join the team and help out.

I have started a package locally, but it did not build out of the box. I
need to fiddle some more with the "config" settings. This weekend I will
try and attack it again, but I am working tomorrow so it may be next week.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: