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

Re: Significant code duplication between src:r-cran-lbfgsb3c and src:lbfgsb

Andreas Tille <andreas@fam-tille.de> writes:

> Hi Gard,
> thanks a lot for contacting me.  I'm adding the debian-r mailing list
> since all our packages are team maintained and I do not want to deal
> with private packages.

Hi. My bad, I should have noticed that and should have contacted the
list directly.

> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 11:15:33AM +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote:
>> Hi Andreas,
>> I randomly noticed that your src:r-cran-lbfgsb3c and my src:lbfgsb share
>> significant amounts of upstream code, namely the core lbfsgb.f as
>> written by Nocedal et al.
>> I see our respective patches have diverged quite a bit.
> Currently the r-cran-lbfgsb3c package has no patches since I have not
> seen any need for it.

Indeed, I was mistaken – there are no Debian patches, but the CRAN
source does patch the original lbfgsb, partially in ways that differ
from how src:lbfgsb and SciPy upstream do it. In particular, it seems to
be replacing certain state strings with numeric values. That seems
reasonable, but may cause some headaches for a deduplication effort.

> My only motivation to package this was that it is
> used in the test of r-cran-optimx since it seems a good idea to run the
> full test suite to me.
>> Do you think
>> there's any hope for deduplication here? Could a wrapper conceivably be
>> written that lets c-cran-lbfgsb3c use liblbfgsb0? A few years ago, the
>> SciPy maintainers successfully dropped their lbfsgb.f copy in favor of
>> linking with liblbfgsb0 (and in the process I adopted some of their
>> patches into src:lbfgsb).
> I absolutely agree that code duplication should be avoided.  There are
> some bug reports against some r-cran-* packages to avoid this but I need
> to admit that my workload of things with higher importance is really
> high.  So if you (or a reader of this list) is not able to provide a
> patch to avoid the code copy I'd prefer if you file a bug report to make
> sure that this issue will not be forgotten in the future.

I totally understand! I will see if I can come up with something,
otherwise status quo seems fine too.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: