On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 19:41:13 +0000 José Matos <jamatos@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/11/2011 06:46 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote: > > ARPACK used to be a project at Rice University [1], but they > > abandoned it many years ago. After that many projects (e.g. Octave > > and Scilab) started bundling their own patched versions of the > > software to fix the bugs they had found in the package. The Fedora > > and Debian packages had their own patches as well. > > > > Recently, a collaboration has picked up the pieces and started > > maintaining a new fork of ARPACK [2]. > > > > Can I just change the arpack package to use the new tarballs, or > > does using them require a re-review of the software? > > > > [1] http://www.caam.rice.edu/software/ARPACK/ > > [2] http://forge.scilab.org/index.php/p/arpack-ng/ > > What is the prospect of adoption from those packages that use arpack? > > If the new package becomes the de-facto upstream for arpack I would > say that it does not need a new review it is just the upstream url > source that has changed. As the new project ships a maintained, up-to-date version, the need for bundling bug-fixed versions of ARPACK has disappeared and the projects have started to unbundle their own flavors of ARPACK. On the Fedora side, we'll just drop any patches currently present in the ARPACK package (which have become part of the new upstream release) and rebuild. If no-one disagrees to the procedure, I'll push the new version to rawhide as soon as upstream adds the missing libtool script in the tarball. Furthermore, since the library is only used by freefem++, I might as well push the version to other branches, too, so that removing the bundles can be done in them as well. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussilehtola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
