[Debichem-devel] jgromacs package seems useful

[Michael Banck]

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 02:11:49PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 17.05.2012, 13:08 +0200 schrieb "Steffen Möller":
> 
> [..]
> > > > One thing about README.source; I think if you do something fancy with
> > > > the original tarball, it would be best to supply a "get-orig-source"
> > > > script for the modifications.
> > 
> > Right. This is why I had time to address the packaging and you had not :o)
> [..]
> > > > I take you based you packaging on "jgromacs_v1_src.tgz"?
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> > > > I just renamed the "source" directory inside the jgromacs tarball to
> > > > "jgromacs-1.0" here so far, and it build fine.  
> > > > 
> > > > You wrote you removed jama, I think it is fine to keep it even if it is
> > > > not used in the build.  Unless we have to remove it due to some
> > > > licensing issues, which I guess is not the case?
> > 
> > Hm. The debian/copyright file would need to be amended. IIRC correctly
> > then my build instructions only take code from the jgromacs subfolder,
> > i.e. the extra eyeballs on the Jama library remain established. That
> > is the only bit that is important to me, really. Leave it in if you
> > prefer, even though I had done that fancy GZIP=-9n while retaring.
> 
> Hi guys. I added a script to create the tarball and made some other
> changes, which I thought should be done.

I haven't tried it (not least because I can never remember how to run
debian/watch and/or debian/get-orig-source.sh properly), but you're
removing the jama directory while I don't see a +dfsg in the version.

Granted, the removal was not due to DFSG issues, but shouldn't there be
some other indication that this is not the prestine source other than in
README.source?

I still think repackaging the upstream source just because parts of it
are unused (and this is not a huge space problem, i.e. > 10 MB or so) is
unnecessary.


Michael