[Q-e-developers] qe package
lmartinsamos at gmail.com
Thu Aug 18 22:05:43 CEST 2016
Dear all, I agree with Stefano. The present mechanism is simple and only
thinks that are very general and very core (PW, Modules, install) are
downloaded. Making a distinction between core , second shell, third shell,
half shell, made at somewhere or elsewhere ... may be even more confusing,
and maybe will bring some issues. Moreover, some 'core' (lets call it
'historical') are very specific (like neb) and used only in particular
applications, why to download them by default? at the moment if a user
wants to use neb, he only needs to type make neb, and that's all, like for
the other 'packages' irrespectively of who, how, when, why and what. boh!
2016-08-18 11:20 GMT+02:00 Stefano Baroni <baroni at sissa.it>:
> 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 list
> Q-e-developers at qe-forge.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the developers