Re: Debian Math Team
Hi Nilesh,
On 2021-10-30 15:48, Nilesh Patra wrote:
Thanks for replying. See below :-
Thanks for answering my concerns, and sorry for the long silence.
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 10:33:02AM +0300, Andrius Merkys wrote:
I agree with Anton here. I do not see how further fragmentation of
debian-science could benefit it. I missed the BoF, but maybe there are
notes reflecting this decision?
No notes, Andreas came up with this idea in debconf, you could find it on videos.debian.net.
But anyways, I have the following point to make:
1. Separate team will help keep track of math-specific software, making it easy for
interested folks to work on them. Currently there is no specific team, and packages
are scattered across several teams which is (in my eyes) a bit haphazard
I find it hard to believe that all (most?) of math software in Debian
will be brought under this team. Then there is the categorization
problem: How would we define what is math software? What would be done
with interdisciplinary software? For example, I maintain two packages,
spglib and voronota, which deal with crystallography (chemistry?), but
employ heavy math. Should I put them in debichem or debian-math? I
believe the classification problem cannot be solved in general way,
leading to looking for more "pragmatic" classification.
2. debian-math meta-package (with a separate team) -- this will help researchers to get
math related software and tooling in one go (exactly like the debian-med metapackage)
I would extend Stuart's argument [4] by saying that meta-packages should
be independent from teams. As said, I find it hard to believe that all
math software will end up in debian-math.
3. Easier to find and contribute for people -- I am sure there are a lot of people on this list,
and even DDs who are interested in math, having such a team helps them approach and contribute well.
I am still not entirely sure this will improve the bus factor.
Nevertheless please add me to debian-math.
4. Better maintainance - Lots of math softwares which are still lying un-updated, or broken in some ways.
So it helps improve the overall quality
This greatly depends on the enthusiasm on the members of the new team
(as everywhere in Debian).
5. We have debichem team for chemistry packages, astro team for astronomy ones, and now even a new robotics team
We had a new AI team made a few months back. These would also come under science earlier, so if we could
make teams for specific domains, *and* they are doing well, why not do so for math?
I mean this comes as a very natural choice to me, considering other blends.
Indeed, precedents for debian-math exist. I do not want to block
launching debian-math, I am just questioning whether fragmentation by
domain will result in significant increase of net attention for packages.
For debian-ai, I see a clear need. Packaging AI software for Debian has
its own specific implications, and its coordination is important.
Separate team and separate mailing list will have less members than
debian-science.
Well, every other team has started exactly the same way in Debian (i.e. less members) -- it would
grow with time, I don't think it'll be stalled for ever.
I could _somehat_ agree with the mailing list thingy, maybe we can
keep using this list for discussions.
Furthermore, from my experience one does not need domain
knowledge to successfully package and maintain packages in Debian.
What makes more sense to me, is organizing packages into teams based on
programming languages and build/test systems, as such teams indeed
possess specific knowledge. I think most of the mails asking for help in
debian-med concern language and build system problems, not
domain-specific issues.
I'm sorry, but I have to admit this argument of yours is sloppy, Andrius.
By this logic, we could push entire debian-med python packages into python-team,
java packages into java-team and so on... >
You also mentioned debian-med above, so if you think everything would be per-language
organised, why do you think separate teams (like -med, or -astro) should even exist?
Sure, feel free to disagree. I however cannot solve the package
categorization even for myself - almost every time I package stuff I
have to deliberate on where to push it. I see per-language teams
employing semi-automated means to update packages/fix common issues,
therefore I believe my packages would stay in good shape there even
without my input.
The whole point of blends is to help people with "specific" needs, right.
and such teams help organize that in a reliable way.
In real life I personally do not meet Debian/Ubuntu users who know what
a "blend" or "team" in Debian is. Most users I meet use apt to search
for particular packages they need, that's all. If not found, they turn
to snap or conda or just .deb lying around on the Web. Of course this is
just my experience.
And Fwiw, people do
ask sometimes about software in debian-med (check element), people do file bug reports there, et. al.
Many upstreams are tied to -med team, and that could've never happened without domain-specific knowledge.
These are all great achievements of debian-med and other teams. I am not
trying to null them, sorry it looks like that.
I am worried reading about R packages being moved from debian-r to new
debian-math. I am afraid doing so might negatively impact their quality.
You are right in your worries, but I have some statistics to present here.
See here[1] or more specifically, look here[2,3]
You would notice that in recent times, the most active people there (Andreas, myself, Steffen, Dylan etc)
are also the members of debian-med and also the members of debian-science.
And if we have a math team, I'm sure atleasts some of these people would be involved there.
The number of pure math software in R package team is in no way overflowing, so I really think this should
be manageable. The probability of it having a bit-rot will be less -- atleast not high with me, Andreas, Doug et. al.
being around.
I am really impressed by the work you all do. I have no doubt teams
having you all will take good care of their packages. Thus if you are
fine with further subdivisions of debian-science, I think I should not
have any concerns either.
However if you very strongly feel about it, we could leave the R packages where they are and continue maintaining
them under R package umbrella.
No, I do not feel strongly about that, especially if it is only the
change of the team, not the main human maintainers.
Should you want more explanation, do let me know and I'll be happy to discuss.
Sure. Thanks for finding time to discuss it with me.
[1]: http://blends.debian.net/liststats/
[2]: http://blends.debian.net/liststats/uploaders_r-pkg.png
[3]: http://blends.debian.net/liststats/commitstat_pkg-r.png
[4] https://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2021/11/msg00016.html
Cheers,
Andrius
Reply to: