<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Hi Ole, <br><br></div>I completely agree on trying to coordinate efforts.<br><br></div>My comments about the points you rise:<br><div><br>* Splitting into smaller packages. As all the .cl, .dat, .par, .key files, etc are shareable between arches I agree that they should go to /usr/share/iraf and in a differente package. Notice that there are still a bunch of files (READMEs, csh scripts, text files with docs about implementation, etc) that are basically not need in the running system and could be removed.<br>
<br></div><div>Speaking about arches, an ARM port would be very cool...<br><br></div><div>Regarding docs and noao and vo packages, I have my doubts. The docs are used in the internal documentation system (when you type "help" in cl). In my experience, users type "help" all the time. Tasks are complex, with long lists of parameters and you need the doc system to understand what <br>
</div><div>the task does. The noao package contains basic subpackages. CCD processing is in noao.imred.ccdred Long slit spectrosocopy is in noao.twodspec. In fact, I preloaded noao in my <a href="http://login.cl">login.cl</a> just to avoid loading myself everytime I entered Iraf.<br>
</div><div>I haven't used vo, thought.<br><br></div><div>Spliting said packages would mean that, to have a functional iraf, one usually would install iraf, iraf-noao, iraf-doc, iraf-noao-doc and (iraf-vo, iraf-vo-doc). Too many packages in my opinion. I prefer just iraf for binaries and iraf-common (for example) for noarch data.<br>
<br></div><div>We need an iraf-dev if we want to be able to build external iraf packages. The xc compiler should go in this package. And the headers and libraries.<br><br></div><div>And x11iraf (where xgterm lives) has to be another package. And we need .desktop files for it.<br>
</div><div><br>* Copyright. Probably you are right.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Best, Sergio<br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/5/28 Olе Streicher <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:debian-devel@liska.ath.cx" target="_blank">debian-devel@liska.ath.cx</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Joseph, Sergio,<br>
<br>
I am working on a Debian package for IRAF, so I am following the<br>
discussion here closely. I intend to base the Debian package on your<br>
work. There are, however, still some issues to be solved. As for other<br>
astronomy packages, it would probably be good to coordinate us here a<br>
bit, so that the packages match closely, that the Linux fragmentation<br>
does not make it too hard to switch between Debian and Fedora.<br>
<br>
Here are my thoughts for the Debian package. Feel free to ignore them<br>
or to discuss them here ;-) :<br>
<br>
Splitting into smaller packages<br>
===============================<br>
<br>
Arch-dependent and arch-independent package<br>
-------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Most of the files are arch independent; it does not make sense to<br>
duplicate them for every architecture. This is important for Debian<br>
which has a dozens of official and inofficial ports, but may be an issue<br>
for (potential) fedora ports as well. Extending to other architectures<br>
seems mainly a problem of the zsvjmp.s file, which already exists for<br>
i386, x64_64, and ppc (and others). Since this code is quite small, it<br>
is probably not too difficult to port it to the oder Fedora and Debian<br>
architectures; I could ask port maintainers to help writing the code<br>
once it works for the main architectures.<br>
<br>
Documentation would be another sub-package (which would be an optional<br>
installation), as well as maybe a -dev or -src package (which contains<br>
the files needed to rebuild/update the IRAF package, if this is needed<br>
at all -- I have doubts here).<br>
<br>
Split-off of large subpackages<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
I would split off the VO and NOAO packages. I am not sure whether<br>
everyone needs these packages, so they could be made optional. Both<br>
could be also split into arch-dependent, arch-independent and<br>
documentation packages. Maybe other sub-packages are useful as well.<br>
<br>
Directory tree<br>
==============<br>
<br>
According to the FHS, the architecture independent files should go into<br>
/usr/share/iraf/ (is this %_{datadir}/iraf?), which then are linked into<br>
/usr/lib/iraf/ (in Debian better /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/iraf/ to<br>
allow multiarch). So, the IRAF base dir could look like<br>
<br>
$ ls -l $iraf<br>
<br>
drwxrwxr-x 2 oles 4096 Okt 18 2012 bin<br>
drwxrwxr-x 2 oles 4096 Okt 18 2012 dev -> /usr/share/iraf/dev<br>
drwxrwxr-x 4 oles 4096 Okt 18 2012 doc -> /usr/share/doc/iraf<br>
drwxrwxr-x 2 oles 4096 Okt 18 2012 extern -> /usr/share/iraf/extern<br>
-rw-rw-r-- 1 oles 0 Okt 18 2012 HS.PCIX.GEN<br>
drwxrwxr-x 2 oles 4096 Okt 18 2012 include -> /usr/include/iraf<br>
-rw-rw-r-- 1 oles 0 Okt 18 2012 <a href="http://IRAF.NET" target="_blank">IRAF.NET</a><br>
-rw-rw-r-- 1 oles 0 Okt 18 2012 IS.PORT.GEN<br>
drwxrwxr-x 6 oles 4096 Okt 18 2012 lib -> /usr/share/iraf/lib<br>
[...]<br>
drwxrwxr-x 4 oles 4096 Okt 18 2012 unix/<br>
drwxrwxr-x 2 oles 4096 Mai 13 11:47 util -> /usr/share/iraf/util<br>
drwxrwxr-x 13 oles 4096 Okt 18 2012 vo/<br>
<br>
I removed the bin.* here completely; the binaries are stored directly in<br>
/usr/lib/iraf/bin/ (resp. /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/iraf/bin/ for<br>
multiarch). The IRAF subdirectories (unix, vo, noao) I would handle in a<br>
similar manner.<br>
<br>
Patches<br>
=======<br>
<br>
I would propose not to use one huge patch, but to split it up into<br>
smaller patches, by subject. As far as I analyzed your patch, it could<br>
be split up into:<br>
<br>
fix_fncache.patch<br>
fortran.patch<br>
irafuser_csh.patch<br>
libc.patch<br>
link_executables.patch<br>
mksys.patch<br>
shared_readline.patch<br>
unop_int.patch<br>
voclient.patch<br>
vodata.patch<br>
xc.patch<br>
<br>
Copyright<br>
=========<br>
<br>
To your (Sergio) issue, I have a small comment:<br>
<div class="im"><br>
Sergio Pascual <<a href="mailto:sergiopr@fedoraproject.org">sergiopr@fedoraproject.org</a>> writes:<br>
> * The software in iraf is under different licenses. fedora-review checks the<br>
> files in the source tree and tries to group them under license. The present<br>
> licenses are: BSD (3 clauses), BSD (4 clauses), GPL v1 or later, GPl v2 or<br>
> later, CDDL, MIT/X11. I'm not a lawyer, but CDDL and BSD (4 clauses) are not<br>
> GPL compatible, so the combined work cannot fulfill the requirements of every<br>
> license.<br>
<br>
</div>As far as I analyzed the licenses, CDDL is used for unix/boot/xyacc/*<br>
and unix/hlib/stdarg-solaris.h. BSD-4 is used only in<br>
unix/hlib/libc/stdarg-freebsd.h. The stdarg-*.h files are not used for<br>
Linux, so they are not part of a combined work in Debian or Fedora.<br>
<br>
xyacc is used to build the system. The output of xyacc is not<br>
necessarily licensed by CDDL. xyacc is also not linked to GPL<br>
code. Perhaps it may be omitted completely from the binary distribution?<br>
It could also go into a separate (CDDL-licensed) package, if there is a<br>
use for it.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
<br>
Ole<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
Fedora astronomy mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:astronomy@lists.fedoraproject.org">astronomy@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br>
<a href="http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Astronomy" target="_blank">http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Astronomy</a><br>
<a href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/astronomy" target="_blank">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/astronomy</a></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>