[Debichem-devel] jgromacs package seems useful

[Michael Banck]

Hi,

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 02:37:40PM +0200, "Steffen Möller" wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> It is not because of license incompatibilities but more because of the
> technical beauty. We also remove .jar files and other bits that we do
> not want to give the impression of being used. Same here.
  
Well, .jars contain binaries (or at least compiled bytecode), so I am
fine with removing them (though personally I am also fine with just
removing them in the clean target, before package build).

The jama directory however contains source code.

> > 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.
> 
> Adding a +dfsg sounds right to me. An email to the authors is also not
> unlikely to get that jama subdir removed in some future version.
 
Possibly, though shipping that kinda stuff seems to be popular among
java projects.

> Let us not talk too much about it. It is nicer without dead code,
> +dfsg is fine, the work is done and automated, necessary or not.

I'm ok with it, but the somebody has to either ship me the modified
tarball, or some instuctions how to generate it if I am not build and
upload it.
 
> I had OpenMM to work as a package for me. Too say something more
> positive here. Coming.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be negative here.


Michael