[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OpenFOAM .com vs .org

Hello Héctor,

April 26, 2020 8:05 AM, "Hector Gabriel Espinoza Roman DOCENTE" <hespinozar@unicartagena.edu.co>

> Hello:
> I am very happy you put OpenFOAM into Debian. As you might be aware, there are 3 main variants of
> OpenFOAM: openfoam.com (e.g. v1812), openfoam.org (e.g. v7) and openfoam-extend.
> Over the last few years I have been in contact mainly with v1812. I had some special needs and I
> found that v7 is ahead v1912 in some fundamental features.
> Is it possible that you include OpenFOAM v7 (and v8 in the future) into Debian?
> Sincerely,
> Ing. Héctor Espinoza Román, MSc, PhD
> Profesor Universidad de Cartagena

I updated your CC to point at the Debian Science mailing list itself as that's what you probably want rather than the Alioth debian-science-maintainers address.

Switching back from openfoam.com's calendar versioning scheme e.g. v1812 to openfoam.org's semantic versioning scheme e.g. v7 presents a bit of a difficulty, and including both OpenFOAM versions would be too wasteful. From a packaging perspective, the .com variant was better for me after struggling a long time to update to v6, but I understand from a user's standpoint, the .org or -extend variants might be better.

Altogether there are some big problems here, so I would suggest trying to start with something more small and actionable, the particular features you need which are available in v7 but not in v1812 (presumably you meant the version in stable right now, but you mentioned both 1812 and 1912.) It was my understanding that .com regularly pulls in .org code, so generally speaking, there should be feature parity excepting variations caused by release schedules and so forth. Is this not the case for the features you need?

Thank you for reaching out to start this discussion.

Reply to: