[Pkg-scicomp-devel] Remove or move old packages in SVN?

[Christophe Prud'homme]

replying to myself:

now what is the plan ? who is doing what ?
Do you still have some spare time Daniel ? are you willing to
implement your scheme ?
if so, do you need help doing it ?



Best regards
C.

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Christophe Prud'homme
<prudhomm at debian.org> wrote:
> Daniel,
>
>  thanks for your _very_ helpful work and your suggestions below !
>
>
>  On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Daniel Leidert
>  <daniel.leidert.spam at gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>  >
>  >  Some packages in the SVN are not maintained anymore or are obsoleted.
>  >  Two examples are gnudatalangauge (maintained outside) and ufsparse.
>  ufsparse is indeed obsolete, should be removed
>  if gnudatalanguage is not maintained, let's remove it
>
>
>  >
>  >  Could these be moved into an own directory (e.g. oldpkgs or oldlibs or
>  >  similar) or be removed from the SVN? I just would like to have a better
>  >  organizing of these 2.5GB repository. It would make it easier to check,
>  >  which packages really need maintenance. I normally would suggest a
>  >  top-level structure of
>  I never realized it was that bad because I always retrieved package by
>  package and never the full repo.
>  now with your email I realize that some reorganisation is indeed needed !
>
>
>  >  - old (only stable/oldstable)
>  >  - packages (in Debian)
>  >  - wnpp (not yet in Debian/ITP)
>  agreed, good idea
>
>
>  >  and maybe (see my other mail some days ago)
>  I saw it on debian-science but didn't have time to  answer
>
>  >  - tags/{package1,package2,....}
>  I agree with that but I guess we have to customize svn-buildpackage
>  for the -svn-tag to work, no ?
>
>
>  >  I'm just helping in this packaging group, but maybe you agree to my
>  >  thoughts. Please feel free to comment and/or object.
>  that's a big help you provide and thank you for your suggestions.
>  I believe that they are sound and should not take too much time to implement
>  I think also that this is the "right" categorisation (at least for
>  now) : I would not go, for example, in the direction
>  of  categories/layout like pde, algebra, graph visualisation, ...
>
>  Best regards
>  C.
>