Re: Mpich 1/2/3

[Torquil Macdonald Sørensen <torquil@gmail.com>]

Hi Anton!

Yes, I would appreciate the help, so that is very kind of you.

Btw, your second point (regarding dh) is something we had planned. But 
even though the package has potential for improvement in several places, 
my personal plan was to not do everything at once, in order to prevent 
several problems appearing simulaneously. The name change in addition to 
inclusion of the NMU in the changelog was enough of a worry for me at 
the moment :-)

But if someone more experienced could help I would be glad to work on 
more improvements simultaneously. Actually, I have been doing some work 
on moving it to dh locally, but thought I would delay it until after the 
change of name has gone through without too many problems.

Regarding the change of name, I don't really have a strong opinion on 
the matter. Replacing mpich2 with a good mpich3 package in Debian is my 
main goal right now.

Best regards
Torquil Sørensen

On 26/05/13 23:31, Anton Gladky wrote:
> Torquil, some suggestions on packaging:
> I think it is better:
>
> 1) to use compat-level 9
> 2) dh instead of cdbs, debian/rules will be shorter and more clear in this case;
> 3) copyright-file in DEP-5 format;
> 4) DEP-3 for patches
> 5) postinst and prerm scripts should be inspected.
>
> If you want, I can try to help with some of points.
>
> Regards,
>
> Anton
>
> 2013/5/26 Torquil Macdonald Sørensen <torquil@gmail.com>:
> > Yes, I have uploaded the mpich 3.0.3 sources to the upstream branch in the
> > git repository, as well as made some changes in debian/ to make it work. I
> > might have a few more small changes, though, in addition to uploading the
> > 3.0.4 upstream sources which are now available. E.g. perhaps upping the
> > Debian standards version and including an earlier NMU upload in the
> > changelog.
> >
> > I have changed the source name to mpich in the git repository, and have also
> > added a few dummy transitional packages since the binary packages will also
> > change names a bit due to the name change and due to an increase in the
> > library soname.
> >
> > Despite the fact that the existence of the transitional packages seems to
> > give a smooth upgrade on my system, I am of course not 100% sure that the
> > scheme I have deviced is optimal, since this is a bit new to me.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Torquil Sørensen