Ho Torquil, I think it OK, to use mpich as the source package name for mpich version 3. But it is my personal point of view. We just need to coordinate a transition (if it is necessary). Do you have already done some packaging on mpich 3? Thanks for contribution, Anton On 05/26/2013 08:24 PM, Torquil Macdonald Sørensen wrote: > Hi! > > I am a maintainer of the "mpich2" package. My goal is to package Mpich > 3.0.4 and get someone from the Debian Science team to upload it to Sid. > Before Lucas Nussbaum stepped down as a maintainer, we decided that it > would be a good idea to change the source package name from "mpich2" to > "mpich" at the same time. > > A source package called "mpich" already exists, but the software is very > old and I don't really see the usefulness of it anymore. Perhaps I am > wrong? I contacted the maintainers of "mpich" to ask, but did not get a > response. Therefore I'm asking the Debian Science team. > > Do you guys think the old "mpich" source package can be removed from Sid > and Testing? I have checked the rdepends of all its associated binary > packages. The only instance of an non-mpich package referring to a > binary package from the "mpich" source is the package > "science-nanoscale-physics", which only suggests libmpich1.0gf. > > Mpich 3 is a much improved version of this software, so perhaps the old > mpich source package can be eliminated, so I can go ahead and work on > renaming the current mpich2 to mpich, and upgrade it to the newest > upstream Mpich version 3.0.4? > > Best regards > Torquil Sørensen > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature