sundials_2.7.0+dfsg-1~1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Andreas Tille]

Hi Dima,

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 08:18:10PM -0700, Dima Kogan wrote:
> > OK. It's nowhere near done, but probably good enough for experimental.
> > Give me a few days.
> 
> I just looked at it. There actually are some package names that are new
> in respect with the previous packages and that probably will change when
> we actually finish this (specifically libsundials-dev and
> libsundials-doc). I think I don't want anything going into NEW that will
> disappear by the time we make a non-experimental release.

While this sounds sensible I'd assume that a second inspection in NEW of
the very same upstream source would get a fast processing.

> So let's hold
> off. Yes? The tree in git can be used to build packages. You mentioned
> that an upload would be useful for testing packages that
> 
>     Depends:libsundials-something
> 
> Are there specific ones you're thinking of?

I intend to package two new libraries depending sundials:
libroadrunner[1] and libsbml-odesolver[2].  Both are not really urgent
but my work on these are stalled since I realised in January that
libsundials is in a somehow unpredictable state.  Since I expect way
more work with both libs I would be happy to have some clear path what
will happen with libsundials.

In any case thanks for your work on libsundials

     Andreas.

[1] http://libroadrunner.org/
    https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-med/libroadrunner.git
[2] http://www.tbi.univie.ac.at/~raim/odeSolver/
    https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-med/libsbml-odesolver.git


-- 
http://fam-tille.de