Re: Sponsoring science packages
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Sponsoring science packages
- From: Daniel Leidert <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 17:21:36 +0200
- Message-id: <1124292096.1704.10.camel@localhost>
- In-reply-to: <1124291709.1704.7.camel@localhost>
- References: <4302BE77.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20050817133944.GB4341@melusine> <1124288967.29233.16.camel@localhost> <20050817145125.GC4341@melusine> <1124291709.1704.7.camel@localhost>
Am Mittwoch, den 17.08.2005, 17:15 +0200 schrieb Daniel Leidert:
> Am Mittwoch, den 17.08.2005, 16:51 +0200 schrieb Frederic Lehobey:
> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 04:29:26PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> > > Am Mittwoch, den 17.08.2005, 15:39 +0200 schrieb Frederic Lehobey:
> > > > There are several projects (inside Debian) I know of for collective
> > > > packaging practice and review:
> > > [..]
> > > > Could not we settle something similar for science packages?
> > > > (like pkg-debian-science).
> > >
> > > On alioth? This could become a really big project or do you only want to
> > > keep the debian files there (as e.g. the pkg-java  guys do)?
> > Yes, this is what I meant. I was thinking of source+debian files as
> > ocaml maintainers do.
> Ok, now I understand. But be aware, that even the compressed source can
> be large (e.g. Jmol, gopenmol). Would this still allow a packaging
> practice, where the upstream is put in compressed form in orig-tarball
> (e.g. used by the apache maintainers team). Sorry, if this is a dumb
> question, but I am not familiar with svn and e.g. the Chemistry
> Development Kit needs such a packaging practice because of the circular
> dependency with Joelib (the tarball then contains compressed joelib, cdk
> and cdk-plugin archives).
After some more thinking. It should work. So forget about this question.