[fedora-astronomy] Build iraf RPM on fedora

Thu May 30 21:47:07 UTC 2013

Hi Ole,

I completely agree on trying to coordinate efforts.

My comments about the points you rise:

* 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.

Speaking about arches, an ARM port would be very cool...

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
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 login.cl just to avoid loading myself
everytime I entered Iraf.
I haven't used vo, thought.

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.

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.

And x11iraf (where xgterm lives) has to be another package. And we need
.desktop files for it.

* Copyright. Probably you are right.

Best, Sergio

2013/5/28 Olе Streicher <debian-devel at liska.ath.cx>

> Hi Joseph, Sergio,
>
> I am working on a Debian package for IRAF, so I am following the
> discussion here closely. I intend to base the Debian package on your
> work. There are, however, still some issues to be solved. As for other
> astronomy packages, it would probably be good to coordinate us here a
> bit, so that the packages match closely, that the Linux fragmentation
> does not make it too hard to switch between Debian and Fedora.
>
> Here are my thoughts for the Debian package. Feel free to ignore them
> or to discuss them here ;-) :
>
> Splitting into smaller packages
> ===============================
>
> Arch-dependent and arch-independent package
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Most of the files are arch independent; it does not make sense to
> duplicate them for every architecture. This is important for Debian
> which has a dozens of official and inofficial ports, but may be an issue
> for (potential) fedora ports as well. Extending to other architectures
> seems mainly a problem of the zsvjmp.s file, which already exists for
> i386, x64_64, and ppc (and others). Since this code is quite small, it
> is probably not too difficult to port it to the oder Fedora and Debian
> architectures; I could ask port maintainers to help writing the code
> once it works for the main architectures.
>
> Documentation would be another sub-package (which would be an optional
> installation), as well as maybe a -dev or -src package (which contains
> the files needed to rebuild/update the IRAF package, if this is needed
> at all -- I have doubts here).
>
> Split-off of large subpackages
> ------------------------------
>
> I would split off the VO and NOAO packages. I am not sure whether
> everyone needs these packages, so they could be made optional. Both
> could be also split into arch-dependent, arch-independent and
> documentation packages. Maybe other sub-packages are useful as well.
>
> Directory tree
> ==============
>
> According to the FHS, the architecture independent files should go into
> /usr/share/iraf/ (is this %_{datadir}/iraf?), which then are linked into
> /usr/lib/iraf/ (in Debian better /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/iraf/ to
> allow multiarch). So, the IRAF base dir could look like
>
> $ ls -l $iraf
>
> drwxrwxr-x  2 oles   4096 Okt 18  2012 bin
> drwxrwxr-x  2 oles   4096 Okt 18  2012 dev -> /usr/share/iraf/dev
> drwxrwxr-x  4 oles   4096 Okt 18  2012 doc -> /usr/share/doc/iraf
> drwxrwxr-x  2 oles   4096 Okt 18  2012 extern -> /usr/share/iraf/extern
> -rw-rw-r--  1 oles      0 Okt 18  2012 HS.PCIX.GEN
> drwxrwxr-x  2 oles   4096 Okt 18  2012 include -> /usr/include/iraf
> -rw-rw-r--  1 oles      0 Okt 18  2012 IRAF.NET
> -rw-rw-r--  1 oles      0 Okt 18  2012 IS.PORT.GEN
> drwxrwxr-x  6 oles   4096 Okt 18  2012 lib -> /usr/share/iraf/lib
> [...]
> drwxrwxr-x  4 oles   4096 Okt 18  2012 unix/
> drwxrwxr-x  2 oles   4096 Mai 13 11:47 util -> /usr/share/iraf/util
> drwxrwxr-x 13 oles   4096 Okt 18  2012 vo/
>
> I removed the bin.* here completely; the binaries are stored directly in
> /usr/lib/iraf/bin/ (resp. /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/iraf/bin/ for
> multiarch). The IRAF subdirectories (unix, vo, noao) I would handle in a
> similar manner.
>
> Patches
> =======
>
> I would propose not to use one huge patch, but to split it up into
> smaller patches, by subject. As far as I analyzed your patch, it could
> be split up into:
>
> fix_fncache.patch
> fortran.patch
> irafuser_csh.patch
> libc.patch
> link_executables.patch
> mksys.patch
> shared_readline.patch
> unop_int.patch
> voclient.patch
> vodata.patch
> xc.patch
>
> Copyright
> =========
>
> To your (Sergio) issue, I have a small comment:
>
> Sergio Pascual <sergiopr at fedoraproject.org> writes:
> >   * The software in iraf is under different licenses. fedora-review
> checks the
> > files in the source tree and tries to group them under license. The
> present
> > licenses are: BSD (3 clauses), BSD (4 clauses), GPL v1 or later, GPl v2
> or
> > later, CDDL, MIT/X11. I'm not a lawyer, but CDDL and BSD (4 clauses) are
> not
> > GPL compatible, so the combined work cannot fulfill the requirements of
> every
> > license.
>
> As far as I analyzed the licenses, CDDL is used for unix/boot/xyacc/*
> and unix/hlib/stdarg-solaris.h. BSD-4 is used only in
> unix/hlib/libc/stdarg-freebsd.h. The stdarg-*.h files are not used for
> Linux, so they are not part of a combined work in Debian or Fedora.
>
> xyacc is used to build the system. The output of xyacc is not
> necessarily licensed by CDDL. xyacc is also not linked to GPL
> code. Perhaps it may be omitted completely from the binary distribution?
> It could also go into a separate (CDDL-licensed) package, if there is a
> use for it.
>
> Best regards
>
> Ole
> _______________________________________________
> Fedora astronomy mailing list
> astronomy at lists.fedoraproject.org
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Astronomy
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/astronomy
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/astronomy/attachments/20130530/9f03615a/attachment.html>