Re: Welcome to Debian Astronomy!
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 05:37:23PM +0100, Оlе Ѕtrеісhеr wrote:
> However, I have the feeling that many science packages have a bad
> upstream development philosophy in common: they seem to tend to include
> oldish, abandoned libraries, sometimes even patch them for the own
> needs, not following the common SW development. It is hard for us the
> take these libraries back out and replace them by dependencies, and to
> continue maintaining these abandoned libraries. Grace is just the
> current example here, other science, also astronomy programs may follow
> with the same problem. But this is something only upstream can change
> (or the maintainer, and a cooperating upstream), and often one just
> cannot convince upstream at all
I can confirm this. I'm frequently using the term "I'm writing you on
behalf of the Debian Med team <bla-short-intro> and we are doing <link
to tasks pages>" This makes sure that I'm not just a random Debian geek
but there is a dedicated team which tries to assemble a system what is
specifically interesting for an upstream developer (which a rather
generic Debian Science is not). Over the last years I learned that this
strategy is *really* successful and that we conviced several upstreams
to work on the packaging themselves (that's why I started MoM to train
upstream).
> But this is independent of the science field, and independent of whether
> we run our own mailing list or blend. Any idea how to solve this?
If you are a strong team which upstream can consider a sensible partner
they are more willing to follow your suggestions but this is no
guarantee for sure.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: