Re: Backports of scientific packages (Was: Re: GROMACS version)
Hello,
Manuel Prinz wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 25.09.2009, 12:23 +0200 schrieb Steffen Moeller:
>> Would there be a way to auto-backport packages that are flagged in this
>> respect? Similarly to some non-free packages being explicitly allowed to be
>> auto-built? Basically all packages in debian-science and debian-med are very
>> likely candidates, IMHO.
>
> Yes. I like the idea but we simply can't rebuild everything from the
> task pages of these blends since there are also tools from KDE or GNOME
> which would mean to backport quite a lot of unrelated stuff.
You mean some packages are unportable? The blends should not have KDE or so
mentioned directly.
> Also,
> packages with code in interpreted language can almost always be used
> directly from testing. But I think auto-building could work for a
> well-defined subset of packages.
Hm. Should there not be a flag to explicitly indicate the backporting? And
where do we place the patches to the debian package that was aiming at Squeeze?
> If there is interest in this and several (~5?) developers would
> volunteer in maintaining these backports, we should get our heads
> together and try to build something like that. I could probably donate a
> VM for this purpose, and would volunteer to talk to the backports.org
> people. But given my time constraints at the moment, I will need support
> from interested people (even non-DDs) to make this happen.
We'd need the sysadmins of the HPC setups to step forward and assist in setting
things up, but neither you not me should maintain the effort. If there is
demand, then there should be volunteers also to run it.
Many greetings
Steffen (running only squeeze or sid on his machines)
Reply to: