Re: Welcome to Debian Astronomy!
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 09:32:37AM +0100, Оlе Ѕtrеісhеr wrote:
> Hi Fred,
Hello Ole
>
> PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel <frederic-emmanuel.picca@synchrotron-soleil.fr>
> writes:
> > It is true that debian-science is quite fragile (so many package which
> > require very specific competencies) and that this sort of specialize
> > blend can fragment the initial effort.
>
> I would see it quite the other way around: Having specialized blends
> would actually attract people and interest from this field and therefore
> help in maintaining the packages.
This is why I like the tasks files of the blends or the work around the
neuro debian.
This is an appealing way to present software and create a community
for a specialize area of debian-science.
> Can you be more specific on what you mean with the danger of
> fragmentation? As an astronomer, I am also a scientist, and therefore
> would feel as a part of the scientific computing approach of
> Debian. But: as debian-astro, we may also get amateurs which may not
> count themself as scientists.
for me the problem is that some discussion of the astonomers can be interesting
for other field of science.
for exemple the cpl pipeline used in astronomy is quite interesting also
for detector analyses in synchrotron radiation facilities. This is nice
to see the work around this in Debian-science
If this kind of discussions move to debian-astro it will be more
difficult for peoples following debian-science to hear about your
software even if they are not interest first in astromony.
I hope that you will create a vibrant community around astronomy
software. :)
> > I am wondering if this sort of blend should not be sort of satellite
> > of debian-science using dedicated mailling if the traffic is to big
> > but for the rest use the debian-science infrastructure (especially the
> > repositories) to avoid this fragmentation.
>
> [moved from top]
> > picca@moszumanska:/git/debian-science/packages$ ls -l | wc
> > 429 3856 34878o Debian Astronomy!
>
> For me, browsing the git repository is already a pain, these are far too
> much packages in one directory. Having them in a separate dir would be
> nice, without caring of whether this is a subdir of debian-science or
> not.
from my point of view this flat organisation is nice
it is very easy to remember the location of a package of debian-science.
git.debian.org/git/Debian-science/packages/<package>
if we start to create subdirectory this will be a pain.
I think that this hierarchical presentation is not the purpose of the
repository. This is more what is provided by the task pages of the
blends.
I like also the dgit project which try to unify around git the
management of packages in the archive. This way we can forget about repo
organisation and it is possible to create automatic tools which can work
at the full distribution level.
the pity is that it does not work properly with format 3.0 (quilt)
which is really usefull when you work with the upstream.
>
> What should be done in your opinion to have debian-astro as a
> "satellite" of debian-science instead of having it independently?
>
> > I like the fact that we can create dedicated blends (web site and
> > packages thanks to Andreas works) but I do not feel confident to
> > maintain a dedicated repository for these blends.
>
> In git, each package has its own repository. What is the difference
> whether a repository is in /git/debian-science of in /git/debian-astro?
> What kind of "maintenance" do you mean here?
For exemple dh_python migration, add of new X- flag in the control file.
mpitc2 -> mpich migration, upstream files addition.
this kind of things which can be handle by the Team work.
The problem is that we do not have visibility on a roadmap of the
debian-science team. This should help peoples work together if we had
one.
>
> I would draw some more attention to the Policy, where debian-astro
> should not deviate too much from debian-science.
For Debian-PAN, I would use the same policy with the addition thaht all
packages should be backportable out of the box (best effort). Because we
are using these software in production and whant to work wit the stable
release.
Maybe the debian-science policy should contain some reference to sub
projets and specific recommendations.
This way it should be clear thaht astro is a subproject of the bigger
debian-science.
Cheers
Frederic
--
GPG public key 4096R/4696E015 2011-02-14
fingerprint = E92E 7E6E 9E9D A6B1 AA31 39DC 5632 906F 4696 E015
uid Picca Frédéric-Emmanuel <picca@synchrotron-soleil.fr>
GPG public key 1024D/A59B1171 2009-08-11
fingerprint = 1688 A3D6 F0BD E4DF 2E6B 06AA B6A9 BA6A A59B 1171
uid Picca Frédéric-Emmanuel <picca@debian.org>
Reply to: