Hi I'd like to add an ebuild suggestion for Calculix cgx, the pre and post processor for Calculix. I've submitted an ebuild for Calculix previously: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=125773 and for a dependency: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=125772 This should go to the gentoo science team. Please evaluate the ebuild. Thanks, Pete
Created attachment 81886 [details] calculix-cgx-1.5.ebuild
Created attachment 81887 [details] calculix-cgx-1.5.ebuild I put this is sci-misc. There maybe a better place.
Hi Pete, Thanks for your ebuild. This looks like a nice package and I'll try to have a look at it soon and get back to you. Best, Markus
Created attachment 86426 [details] calculix-cgx-1.5.ebuild So this hasn't seen much traffic... Perhaps there is little interest. I could maintain this ebuild, there are not many deps and very infrequent updates. This update corrects a typo in the website.
Created attachment 112454 [details] calculix-cgx-1.6.ebuild
Created attachment 112456 [details, diff] 01_cgx_1.6_Makefile.patch
Created attachment 129066 [details] calculix-cgx-1.7.ebuild Calculix keeps moving!
Created attachment 129067 [details, diff] 01_cgx_1.7_Makefile.patch
Created attachment 129069 [details, diff] 01_cgx_1.7_Makefile.patch Sorry, I forgot to make obsolete the prior patch.
Can you please add these ebuilds and patches to an overlay? Maybe the sunrise overlay?
(In reply to comment #10) > Can you please add these ebuilds and patches to an overlay? Maybe the sunrise > overlay? > I'd be happy to do this. However at the moment I don't have time to learn how to add them to the sunrise overlay. Would science be more appropriate? Not that it matters... I don't have commit access to the science overlay and I'm sure it would take even more time to get involved there. Thanks for the interest.
Created attachment 162476 [details] calculix-cgx-1.8.ebuild CalculiX version bump.
Created attachment 162477 [details, diff] 01_cgx_1.8_Makefile.patch
Created attachment 168536 [details] reworked ebuild for sci-libs/calculix-cgx-1.8 added doc and examples USE-flag
Created attachment 168538 [details, diff] corrected 01_cgx_1.8_Makefile.patch added -lglut, otherwise I can't compile calculix-cgx-1.8
This new ebuild is now in the science overlay: http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/science/browser/overlay/sci-libs/calculix-cgx/calculix-cgx-1.8.ebuild
Deceased & dropped from the sci overlay in https://github.com/gentoo/sci/commit/90afbee2f.
(In reply to Michael Orlitzky from comment #17) > Deceased & dropped from the sci overlay in > https://github.com/gentoo/sci/commit/90afbee2f. Hi Michael, Upstream is alive and well and at version 2.20 release about 1 month ago on a pretty regular cadence. http://www.calculix.de/ It has an active community. This comment: (https://github.com/gentoo/sci/commit/90afbee2f) Suggests its dependency (spooles) was defunct in 1999 and seemingly uses that as justification for dropping it. However, spooles still compiles and runs fine in 2022 (although the old ebuild needs an update to the newer EAPI). Further, spooles is an optional dependency; alternative solvers exist in the code itself as well as in the portage tree. (Including but intel MKL and pastix, both modern high performance solvers.) Lastly, I maintain a fork (https://github.com/gustafson/CalculiX) which allows postprocessing with paraview (also in the portage tree). All in, a professional system. Please reconsider dropping this valuable pair of packages (ccx and cgx). Is it an issue of lack-of-maintainers?
Ok, I apologize, I was overzealous with this one. I've reopened both bugs. Essentially, yes, it is a matter of maintainers. There are few sci-* maintainers, and hundreds of open "new package" bugs that would require one. Typically, sci-* packages are harder to maintain because the upstreams aren't interested in the finer points of build systems and portability. As a result, if we're honest, most of those packages with open bugs will never make it into ::gentoo. So every once in a while I try to close a few of the older ones that look like they'll never be resolved otherwise. I've taken a closer look at the commit in the sci overlay that removed calculix, and I'm guessing that the real reason it was removed is because it required two non-trivial patches, and those patches probably didn't apply cleanly to newer versions of calculix, meaning that someone would have to spend a few hours figuring out what the patches did and porting them to the new version of calculix before it could be updated.
(In reply to Michael Orlitzky from comment #19) > Ok, I apologize, I was overzealous with this one. I've reopened both bugs. No problem. I just updated spooles-2.2 ebuild to EAPI 7 and compiled it with gcc-12.2. Over the next few days I'll try to update the ccx ebuild to 2.20. It shouldn't be too bad. Should I assume these should be submitted a PR on the science overlay? (It isn't clear to me whether they should be here too...)
(In reply to Peter Gustafson from comment #20) > (In reply to Michael Orlitzky from comment #19) > > Ok, I apologize, I was overzealous with this one. I've reopened both bugs. > > No problem. > > I just updated spooles-2.2 ebuild to EAPI 7 and compiled it with gcc-12.2. > > Over the next few days I'll try to update the ccx ebuild to 2.20. It > shouldn't be too bad. > > Should I assume these should be submitted a PR on the science overlay? (It > isn't clear to me whether they should be here too...) TBH they would just bit-rot on this bug, and probably in the science overlay as well. If you're able to keep these packages up-to-date yourself, my suggestion would be to put them in the GURU overlay: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:GURU That makes them visible to the most users, and allows you to make changes without going through a Gentoo developer.
