[Q-e-developers] qe package

Lorenzo Paulatto lorenzo.paulatto at impmc.upmc.fr
Thu Aug 18 13:04:34 CEST 2016

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

* 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.


On 18 August 2016 at 12:34, Adrian Hühn <adrian.huehn at thch.uni-bonn.de>

> Hello,
> 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".
> 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:
> - people familiar with Linux/UNIX but new to QE would have a much smoother
> learning curve
> - package maintainers have an easier way to set up installation directories
> - file path in the documentation would be more consistent for "regular"
> linux package
> Regards,
> Adrian
> Am 18.08.2016 um 11:20 schrieb Stefano Baroni:
> 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
> On 18 Aug 2016, at 11:13, Filippo Spiga <filippo.spiga at quantum-
> espresso.org> wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> Just my 2 cents ...
> On 18 Aug 2016, at 09:51, Stefano Baroni <baroni at sissa.it> wrote:
> 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
> --
> Filippo SPIGA
> * Sent from my iPhone, sorry for typos *
> _______________________________________________
> Q-e-developers mailing listQ-e-developers at qe-forge.orghttp://qe-forge.org/mailman/listinfo/q-e-developers
> _______________________________________________
> Q-e-developers mailing list
> Q-e-developers at qe-forge.org
> http://qe-forge.org/mailman/listinfo/q-e-developers

Dr. Lorenzo Paulatto
IdR @ IMPMC -- CNRS & Université Paris 6
phone: +33 (0)1 44275 084 / skype: paulatz
www:   http://www-int.impmc.upmc.fr/~paulatto/
mail:  23-24/4é16 Boîte courrier 115, 4 place Jussieu 75252 Paris Cédex 05
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.quantum-espresso.org/pipermail/developers/attachments/20160818/09df2874/attachment.html>

More information about the developers mailing list