Hi, Giovanni. On Jul 19 2010, Giovanni Mascellani wrote: > Thanks for your feedback. Unfortunately in the meantime upstream's > reaction wasn't really the one I'd liked more[1].
Thank you very much for your reply. > http://groups.google.com.au/group/debian-sage/browse_thread/thread/20e092f1b11e6f02 I did not know about this reaction, but I can understand where they are coming from: it seems that sage is updated regularly and the Debian packaging is rotting in unstable. [1] [1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/sagemath.html The package is not installable for quite some time and I think that, in the current situation, it will never be part of any stable release, which is one of the justifications for it to be removed from the archives. > Anyway, maybe these issues can be solved, if we talk with upstream and, > above all, we can find a few people to comaintain the package. If I understood them correctly, they are not 100% opposed to the idea of having sagemath: they are only opposed to having the package too outdated. > Working with a non collaborative upstream would be very frustrating on > such big package (it is frustrating on much more stupid packages...). Well, I think that a public repository for packaging it would be a very good start (Tim, do you have any?). Some of the big tasks that I would like to see addressed regarding sagemath would be: * getting a first draft package done, even if "improper for public consumption". * relaxing the huge amount of dependencies (dropping them to recommends, instead). * modularizing things as much as possible. * getting patches fed up to other upstream packages. Of course, packaging sagemath is a very big task, basing myself only on the list of programs that it embraces. > Unfortunately, I won't come (even if I hope to be in Banja Luka 2011). > Good luck! :-) Thanks. I hope to go also to Banja Luka. :-) > After announcing my interest, I didn't invest any time in sage, partly > because of upstream's reaction I mentioned above, partly because I > wanted to finish to work on some packages I'm already busy on. OK. I did not have time to play with it yet, but now that I completed some tasks (read: playing with the port of xpdf to use libpoppler and other small stuff), I think that I can reserve some time for another package, especially if we can put everything under a git repository, which will be convenient for the development. And I am happy to teach the little that I know about maintaining projects with git. > However, I really don't think that sagemath will be part of squeeze, I > guess we'll have to wait at least squeeze+1. I am not very ambitious regarding getting it to be part of squeeze, but just having it in Debian, in a working situation is way better than the current situation. :-) Seeing upstream's reaction makes me think that, perhaps, the best option for packaging sagemath would be to place it in volatile [2], so that it can always be close to what upstream wants and also what users can use. [2] http://www.debian.org/volatile/ Regards, -- Rogério Brito : rbr...@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 1024D/7C2CAEB8 http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
