From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add gctp Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 13:21:31 -0400 Message-ID: <20160625172131.GC21038@jasmine> References: <20160617.144017.336729442489418576.post@thomasdanckaert.be> <20160618013926.GA1823@jasmine> <20160618.110540.2110350506362048689.thomas.danckaert@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37895) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bGrHR-0002Yi-NR for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Jun 2016 13:22:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bGrHM-0001LA-Mm for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Jun 2016 13:22:05 -0400 Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:52707) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bGrHK-0001Iy-L2 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Jun 2016 13:22:00 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160618.110540.2110350506362048689.thomas.danckaert@gmail.com> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Thomas Danckaert Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 11:05:40AM +0200, Thomas Danckaert wrote: > From: Leo Famulari > Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:39:26 -0400 > > Should we package GCTP separately in that case? Is it used by anything > > besides HDF-EOS5? Or, should we just package HDF-EOS5? > > The only other use I'm aware of is in HDF-EOS2, which is a separate library > from HDF-EOS5, built on HDF4 instead of HDF5, and which also bundles gctp. I > intend to package HDF-EOS2 as well, once HDF4 is included. > > > We usually don't accept bundled code, but it sounds like GCTP no longer > > exists as an independent project. Is that right? > > That is my impression, too (broken urls and undeliverable e-mails). The > package is quite small anyway, so perhaps bundling with the 2 HDF-EOS > libraries is acceptable? It sounds like you've tried emailing the authors for advice. Is that right? > The archive does not contain an explicit version number or changelog (it > just says it's the “new C version of the GCTP” -- before that, it seems > there were some Fortran routines). I've also found a gctpc2.0 archive, > which *does* have a changelog, and on closer inspection (comparing the > source of this package with comments from the changelog from 2.0), it seems > that this code corresponds to version 1.3... (though e.g. Debian also calls > it 1.0). It's quite messy actually. I'll see if HDF-EOS5 builds against > gctp-2.0 (for which a I've found a cleaner archive), and maybe package that > instead... It looks like this gctp-2.0 is bundled with wgrib2 [0]. If there is no independent repository for GCTP, I'd assume that GCTP is altered independently for each application that it's bundled with. If so, I think it makes sense to use the bundled copy of GCTP. Otherwise, we are basically forking GCTP and creating a new distribution of it, and that would require us to maintain it and test its integration with HDF-EOS5. What do people think? Should we use the bundled GCTP in HDF-EOS5 and, later, HDF-EOS2? [0] http://www.nco.ncep.noaa.gov/pmb/codes/nwprod/util/sorc/wgrib2.cd/grib2/wgrib2/Introduction.txt