| 1 |
Hello Joseph and Sébastien,
|
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Sébastien Fabbro <bicatali@g.o> writes:
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Joseph Booker <joe@××××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> I've been trying to package casa and its dependencies with some amount of |
| 8 |
>> success. It requires a few new packages (including a version of xerces-c |
| 9 |
>> that was removed for security reasons), but it requires a different |
| 10 |
>> implementation of casacore then is currently in the main tree. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Specifically, casacore from https://code.google.com/p/casacore has been |
| 13 |
>> forked with additions made to the interface. This fork is only available |
| 14 |
>> from an svn repo, and the only "releases" are tags when a new version of |
| 15 |
>> casa is released. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
FYI, the casacore teams is planning to roll out a tarball of 1.6.0 release
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
http://code.google.com/p/casacore/issues/detail?id=58#c4
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
>> [...] |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> I'm wondering if the current casacore ebuilds should be replaced with ones |
| 24 |
>> that pull from the "releases" from nrao, or if I should make new (blocking) |
| 25 |
>> casa-casacore ebuilds for this fork. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Probably best to contact casa and casacore upstream to see what the |
| 28 |
> differences and roadmaps are. It's possible that they might make our |
| 29 |
> life easier by unbundling and splitting the packages. The science |
| 30 |
> overlay would be a good place to maintain the casa version of |
| 31 |
> casacore. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
+1
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Cheers,
|
| 36 |
Benda |
Archives