<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Hello,<br></div>I agree with Nicola that we can put more* stuff in the default download. I do not think that a download of 50 or even 100 megabytes is really a problem for anybody nowadays, not even in developing countries. If we are erally concerned about size, we should just compress the tar archive with xz instead of gzip (tar -cJvf ...), which would make it 3 or 4 times smaller.<br><br></div>* By "more" I mean all that is guaranteed to by synced with the SVN version of pw.x. Realistically, all that stays in the same SVN: PH, PP, ... Not the packages that may take a while to be updated, as this would make the release of a new version more complicated.<br><br></div>cheers<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 18 August 2016 at 12:34, Adrian Hühn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:adrian.huehn@thch.uni-bonn.de" target="_blank">adrian.huehn@thch.uni-bonn.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
Hello,<br>
<br>
I hope, I am not impudent if I interfere your discussion but maybe I
can contribute with my personal perspective as newcomer (I used QE
for my master thesis last year and was on my own, as nobody in my
workgroup actually uses it). Before I built QE for the first time
manually, I took a build script from the community of Arch Linux
(the script automates built and installation to common bin and lib
paths). So it made several days of fiddling as the installation
directories and the paths in the documentation differ. I end up only
using the built directory and never install via "make install".<br>
<br>
I think that it would be beneficial if the packaging is more close
to a layout typically found in Linux distributions, i.e. separating
source code, documentation and examples. I see several advantages to
this:<br>
- people familiar with Linux/UNIX but new to QE would have a much
smoother learning curve<br>
- package maintainers have an easier way to set up installation
directories<br>
- file path in the documentation would be more consistent for
"regular" linux package<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Adrian<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<div>Am 18.08.2016 um 11:20 schrieb Stefano
Baroni:<br>
</div>
</div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
Possiamo graduare la distinzione fra pacchetti “core” e gli altri
(ad esempio distribuendo per default neb.x, ph.x, e pochi altri),
ma secondo me il meccanismo attuale va mantenuto. SB
<div><br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 18 Aug 2016, at 11:13, Filippo Spiga <<a href="mailto:filippo.spiga@quantum-espresso.org" target="_blank">filippo.spiga@quantum-<wbr>espresso.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div dir="auto">
<div><span></span></div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="direction:inherit">I am
*PERSONALLY* aligned with Nicola's way of
thinking. A single package would simplify a lot,
including the perception to the public about what
QE is and what is part of QE distribution. We can
continue to have third-part packages following
this "on-demand" model (West? EPW? SaX?) but NEB,
PH, TDDFT and others packages that exist since
ages can be collected under the same umbrella.</div>
<div style="direction:inherit"><br>
</div>
<div style="direction:inherit">I have
always believed that the reason we had many
packages is to avoid a monolithic heavy
distribution. Based on what I see, the core source
code is not "that big" in size.</div>
<div style="direction:inherit"><br>
</div>
<div style="direction:inherit">I
personally see some beauty and some practicality
in changing the packaging process. The 6.0 will
continue to follow the current process unless the
majority of contributors agree differently. But
because 6.0 is going to introduce already some new
stuff, I personally think this is a good time to
review the packaging process as well.</div>
<div style="direction:inherit"><br>
</div>
<div style="direction:inherit">Just my 2
cents ...</div>
<div style="direction:inherit"><br>
</div>
<div style="direction:inherit">On 18 Aug
2016, at 09:51, Stefano Baroni <<a href="mailto:baroni@sissa.it" target="_blank">baroni@sissa.it</a>>
wrote:</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
Then we have simply to beat the drum by claiming
that our “virtual” (or whatever fancy adjective
you may find) distribution model is “innovative”
and much better than the old-fashioned tar balls …
SB</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="direction:inherit">
<div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br>
--</span>
<div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Filippo
SPIGA</span></div>
<div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">* Sent from
my iPhone, sorry for typos *</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><span class=""><pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Q-e-developers mailing list
<a href="mailto:Q-e-developers@qe-forge.org" target="_blank">Q-e-developers@qe-forge.org</a>
<a href="http://qe-forge.org/mailman/listinfo/q-e-developers" target="_blank">http://qe-forge.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/q-e-developers</a>
</pre>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Q-e-developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Q-e-developers@qe-forge.org">Q-e-developers@qe-forge.org</a><br>
<a href="http://qe-forge.org/mailman/listinfo/q-e-developers" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://qe-forge.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/q-e-developers</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div>Dr. Lorenzo Paulatto </div><div>IdR @ IMPMC -- CNRS & Université Paris 6</div><div>phone: +33 (0)1 44275 084 / skype: paulatz</div><div>www: <a href="http://www-int.impmc.upmc.fr/~paulatto/" target="_blank">http://www-int.impmc.upmc.fr/~paulatto/</a></div><div>mail: 23-24/4é16 Boîte courrier 115, 4 place Jussieu 75252 Paris Cédex 05</div></div>
</div>