Le mercredi 30 mars 2016 à 22:33 +0200, Sébastien Villemot a écrit : > Le mercredi 30 mars 2016 à 22:03 +0200, Wolfgang Fütterer a écrit : > > > > IMHO there are the following options to continue: > > > > 1) Removing suitesparse-metis from unstable > > > > I really don't know, weather this is a good idea or a really bad > > one. > > > > 2) Uploading a new version of suitesparse[2] build against metis > > and > > replacing > > suitesparse-metis. > > > > This would affect primarily two libraries in suitesparse > > (libcholmod > > and > > libspqr). And could cause suitesparse move to contrib. (IMHO not > > preferable) > > > > 3) copying the current source of suitesparse to suitesparse-metis > > and > > preparing a new version of suitesparse-metis with metis enabled. > > > > The latter corresponds to the current state. > > > > Any ideas anyone? Which of these options is preferable, if any? > For me, 2) is clearly not an option, because I want suitesparse to > stay > in main. > > So either 1) and 3). I'm personally indifferent between the two, > because I'm not interested in non-free software. I realize that I'm a little bit confused: suitesparse version 4.5.1 (not yet uploaded to Debian) has the ability to link with METIS 5 (either using the embedded modified copy or using the unmodified metis package). And metis is free software (licensed under Apache License 2.0). So it seems that I could upload suitesparse 4.5.1 linked against metis, without license problems. On the other side, the suitesparse-metis package currently in Debian is linked against Parmetis, which is indeed non-free software. But it seems that Parmetis is not really needed, only metis. Can someone more aware of the situation clarify this? -- .''`. Sébastien Villemot : :' : Debian Developer `. `' http://sebastien.villemot.name `- GPG Key: 4096R/381A7594
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part