Re: Bug#782543: ITP: gpaw -- DFT and beyond within the projector-augmented wave method

[Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org>]

Hi,

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 09:43:26PM +0200, Marcin Dulak wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 04:36:23PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > Apropos  gpaw-setups:  Since I can run `gbp buildpackage` in my clone her
> > > I did so but pbuilder was running into the following error:
> > >
> > >  pbuilder-satisfydepends-dummy : Depends: gpaw-setups which is a
> > >  virtual package.
> > >
> > > It seems you need to package gpaw-setups first if this is a
> > > build-dependency of gpaw.  (BTW, please remove the ',' at the end
> > > of the last Build-Depends.)
> >
> > I assume those pseudopotentials are required to run the test suite?
> >
> > In that case, what we've been doing with other packages is just shipping
> > the minimum required data files to run the test cases as patches in the
> > Debian packaging, this might work for GPAW as well.
> >
> > That depends on course on how many different PPs the testsuite needs, if
> > the answer is "most of them", then yeah, Build-Depending on gpaw-setups
> > sounds ok.
> 
> in my opinion the software should be shipped functional, i.e. the
> whole release of gpaw-setups.  

I was talking about shipping the necessary pseudo-potentials for the
testsuite in the gpaw source (but not binary) package, and not
Build-Depending on gpaw-setups.

Of course the separate gpaw-whatever data package would ship the whole
set.

That said, a more unified distribution-wide approach to
pseudo-potentials wouldn't hurt either, I have the feeling that quite a
few are duplicated amongst packages.  But that is for another
discussion.

> > In any case, I think the binary package should just be called
> > "gpaw-data" in line with other scientific packages.  It's fine to keep
> > the source package name as gpaw-setups, of course.
> 
> let's keep gpaw-setups. This name is known to all the users of the program,

This is purely a package naming scheme issue, the users shouldn't need
to know about this, it should just work after running 'apt-get install
gpaw'.

> and gpaw-setups packaged under the same name on Fedora/CentOS.

There's lots of packages which are called differently in Debian and
Fedora so that isn't a valid point, either.


Michael