Bunch of newly orphaned packages up for grabs

[Quentin Spencer]

On January 19, Jose' Matos wrote:

>On Wednesday 18 January 2006 20:42, Quentin Spencer wrote:
>  
>
>>> FWIW and being consistent with other recent changes the best move would
>>>have been for fftw to have become fftw2 as soon as version 3 was declare
>>>stable.
>>>      
>>>
>>I agree, but I introduced fftw3 because there was no interest on the
>>part of the maintainer of fftw of moving to the 3.x releases. FWIW,
>>Debian has a fftw3 package.
>>    
>>
>
>  I would like exceptions like this to be the exception and not the rule. ;-)
>
>  
>
>>> All the development for this library is happening in version 3, where
>>>release 3.1 is entering beta phase.
>>>
>>> So let us request the change, for you it should be enough to Obsolete
>>>fftw3, no?
>>>
>>> Then we need to change accordingly the packages that require fftw to
>>>require fftw2 and those requiring fftw3 to fftw. Since packages should
>>>only build require the -devel version if we synchronize our releases all
>>>will still work.
>>>
>>>Does this sounds like a plan?
>>>      
>>>
>>This seems reasonble. Currently, fftw3 is only in the FC-4 and devel
>>branches. This is because the main reason I wanted it in Extras was for
>>Octave, which was still in core for FC3. I don't see any particular need
>>to change everything in FC-4, so maybe we just make the changes in devel
>>so that they will be in place for FC-5?
>>    
>>
>
>  That seems fair, although I don't see any problem changing that to FC-4, 
>since that is the first version that we really control. Actually I like this 
>more but I am not dogmatic about it. :-)
>
>  So the question remains, FC-4 or FC-5?
>
>  The advantage of FC-4 is that it would allow us to carry the same spec file, 
>while FC-5 is not yet released.
>
>  
>
>>If we were to make this change, here are the packages that require fftw:
>>fftw-devel
>>grace
>>
>>(It also appears glame on livna would be affected.)
>>    
>>
>
>  This will only affect new buildings, previous packages will work fine.
>
>  We could contact as well other repositories about this change. It would be 
>nice. :-)
>
>  
>
>>Here are the packages that currently require fftw3:
>>fftw3-devel
>>octave
>>octave-forge
>>osiv
>>plplot-octave
>>
>>I maintain octave and octave-forge, and having looked at the others, it
>>appears the plplot dependency is implicit, so the only other package
>>needing an update is osiv.
>>    
>>
>
>  So it should be easy. :-)
>  
>


OK, sorry about the delay in responding. The new 3.1 release of fftw is 
out now, and I have checked the necessary changes for the fftw3 package 
into CVS, but I'm going to wait on requesting a build until we reach a 
final decision on this change. So, here's my proposal: we change both 
FC-4 and FC-5 branches, you take over the 2.x branch under whatever name 
you want (I assume you'll call it fftw2, but it also occured to me that 
we could call it compat-fftw2 or something like that--you're the 
maintainer so you can decide). I will take over fftw and update it to 
the new 3.1 release, and the fftw3 name will be abandoned. If you agree 
with this, go ahead and create the 2.x package and notify me when it's 
done. I will make the necessary changes to fftw and I will notify the 
maintainers of packages that depend on fftw3 (mostly me). The fftw and 
fftw3 spec files are mostly the same, but the fftw3 spec has a few 
details that could be helpful in creating a package whose name differs 
from the upstream name.

-Quentin