Re: OpenFOAM .com vs .org
The .extend is a more academic aproach and open to new software for
special purpose CFD problems. It is led by prof Hrvoje Jasak. The .org
is a more conservative aproach and more a top-down managed.
Some years ago I collaborated with Michael Wild in the FreeFOAM project
that converted the .org software with the CMake configuration software
and some other bits to get it easier adapted into the Debian system.
Unfortunately the upstream developers refused to include the
improvements. Finally we left the FreeFOAM project as it included too
much work to keep up with the upstream code.
Therefore all my respect for the developer(s) who continue to include
the OpenFOAM into Debian.
Gerber van der Graaf
On Fri, 2020-05-01 at 18:49 +0000, kurt@kwk.systems wrote:
> Hello Héctor,
>
> April 26, 2020 8:05 AM, "Hector Gabriel Espinoza Roman DOCENTE" <
> hespinozar@unicartagena.edu.co>
> wrote:
>
> > 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: