<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">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 class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 18 Aug 2016, at 11:13, Filippo Spiga <<a href="mailto:filippo.spiga@quantum-espresso.org" class="">filippo.spiga@quantum-espresso.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div class=""><span class=""></span></div><div class=""><div class=""><div style="direction: inherit;" class="">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;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="direction: inherit;" class="">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;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="direction: inherit;" class="">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;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="direction: inherit;" class="">Just my 2 cents ...</div><div style="direction: inherit;" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="direction: inherit;" class="">On 18 Aug 2016, at 09:51, Stefano Baroni <<a href="mailto:baroni@sissa.it" class="">baroni@sissa.it</a>> wrote:</div></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8" class="">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;" class=""><div class=""><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);" class=""><br class="">--</span><div class=""><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);" class="">Filippo SPIGA</span></div><div class=""><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);" class="">* Sent from my iPhone, sorry for typos *</span></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>