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

Re: Fwd: Re: gfortran and netcdf transitions

On 10-08-15 08:45, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> The big hurdle is the netcdf/gfortran transition: a number of
> packages depend on netcdf.mod. As Matthias points out below, this
> would involve a package rename anyway: do we wish to combine the
> two, given that the netcdf transition has been tested in
> experimental?

For netcdf-fortran I don't see a problem other than the outstanding
bugs to add the new build dependencies [1], etsf-io & oasis3 still
need to build depend on the new libnetcdff-dev. Patches are available
in the bugreports.

The biggest hurdle for the netcdf transition [2] is that we can't
update only netcdf-fortan we need to update the C & C++ packages too.
The netcdf transition tracker still needs to be updated to handle the
package split as mentioned in the transition bugreport (#791215).

I'm not sure if it's wise to start the netcdf transition already, even
though I would prefer to transition to the new netcdf packages instead
of doing a v5 rename. A number of reverse dependencies cannot be built
in unstable because the libdap transition (#791114) hasn't started
yet, so libstdc++6 still breaks the current libdap version in unstable
on which gdal among others (build) depends, and so most GIS package
cannot be built because they (build) depend on gdal. This includes
gmt, ncl & vtk6 that are part of the netcdf transition.

I'd like to ask the opinion of the Release Team whether we should
trigger the netcdf transition too, or do a v5 rename in the old
packages after all.

[2] https://bugs.debian.org/791215

Kind Regards,


 GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146  50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: