Re: Please categorise your packages for the Debian Science metapackages: fenics/dolfin
Hi again,
On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 01:40:52AM +0800, Drew Parsons wrote:
>
> What I mean is that there are a number of component packages which
> together make up FENiCS:
> dolfin-bin
> python-dolfin
> python-ffc
> python-ufl
> python-dijitso
> python-instant
> python-mshr
>
> It doesn't really make sense to list these packages as separate entries
> in the tasks. python-dolfin ultimately is the end-user package, but we
> have a metapackage, fenics, to keep track of the whole collection.
>
> These packages (in particular python-dolfin) are ready to be used by an
> end user, so the mathematics task is the right one.
>
> So my recommendation is that the mathematics task should just list the
> one package, fenics.
>
> Conceivably some of them could also be used by mathematics developers,
> e.g. the developers of Firedrake use FENiCS's UFL (python-ufl) [1]. So
> it's reasonable to also list the fenics package under mathematics-dev.
I admit I remain unsure what actually should be done. It might make
sense to give users hints on the FENiCS components even if they are only
parts of a suite. Its not an exclusion criterion for a package from a
metapackage that it is in the list of dependencies of another package
inside the same metapackage. Could you please provide a patch for
mathematics and mathematics-dev tasks files to make sure it will be
exactly as you want it to be?
I'd like you something else to consider: A user *application* should
not contain the programming language it was written in its package name.
I have not checked but dolphin-bin sounds way more like a user
application than python-dolphin.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: