> Of course, octave does not use the plain Euler
> method. Nobody in their
> right mind would do that. The octave doc says the
> ODE solvers are
> "based on reliable ODE solvers written in Fortran",
> so they are
> probably both more advanced than even plain
> Runge-Kutta. You should
> test both a
Matthew Palmer wrote:
You could put zeth in contrib if it depends on acc, or if acc isn't
required, then zeth could go in main.
It's "Recommends: acc", but it also relies on commercial WAD data to
function, so zeth is definitely a "contrib" package.
The biggest problem is going to be tha
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 06:14:32PM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
> Pending a response from Raven, would it be at all acceptable to place
> the acc package somewhere offsite and have the zeth package tell you
> where to get it, or is even that running afoul of policy?
You could put zeth in contri
Matthew Palmer wrote:
Ayup. Fairly obviously somebody just decided "hey, let's release the source
for this" but didn't really think through the ramifications of what they
were doing.
I wonder if the Open Source Initiative would consider helping companies to
openly licence their software proper
Matthew Palmer wrote:
You could put zeth in contrib if it depends on acc, or if acc isn't
required, then zeth could go in main.
It's "Recommends: acc", but it also relies on commercial WAD data to
function, so zeth is definitely a "contrib" package.
The biggest problem is going to be that the
Hello again!
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 02:34:46AM +0200, Florian Ernst wrote:
> please help me fixing this amusing package (ITA for orphaned package,
> see http://bugs.debian.org/215195 for reference) by simply checking
> and possibly uploading it.
> [...]
> Excerpt from .changes:
> Closes: 213654 2
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 06:14:32PM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
> Pending a response from Raven, would it be at all acceptable to place
> the acc package somewhere offsite and have the zeth package tell you
> where to get it, or is even that running afoul of policy?
You could put zeth in contri
Matthew Palmer wrote:
Ayup. Fairly obviously somebody just decided "hey, let's release the source
for this" but didn't really think through the ramifications of what they
were doing.
I wonder if the Open Source Initiative would consider helping companies to
openly licence their software properly,
Hello again!
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 02:34:46AM +0200, Florian Ernst wrote:
> please help me fixing this amusing package (ITA for orphaned package,
> see http://bugs.debian.org/215195 for reference) by simply checking
> and possibly uploading it.
> [...]
> Excerpt from .changes:
> Closes: 213654 2
Hi Brian,
Brian T Glenn wrote:
> RFS.
> Package: relay-ctrl
(if this was a new package, I'd go for a better name if it's only for
qmail...)
Is there a specific reason you're not having any dependencies besides
libc? The description sounds like you probably should...
Kind regards
T.
--
Thomas Vi
The following package is lintian and linda clean and has been duploaded
to mentors.debian.net. The original maintainer contacted me asking if I
was ever going to adopt this package, so I wanted to put out another
RFS.
ziege:/etc/apt# apt-cache show relay-ctrl
Package: relay-ctrl
Priority: optio
Lukas Geyer wrote:
>>22 seconds for Ocatve (i think euler method)
I'd think not.
>>8 seconds for my library's euler method
>>12 seconds for my library's runge kutta order 2
>>22 seconds for my library's runge kutta order 4
> probably both more advanced than even plain Runge-Kutta. You should
Well,
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 13:47, Halim Boukaram wrote:
[...]
> about the packaging:
> deb, rpm, key, signature?
> I pretty much gave up.
> I'll leave it up to someone else. If anyone's
> interested my projects homepage is:
> http://numerical.port5.com
>
I cannot find any bug filed against wnpp (RFP
Halim Boukaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've tested the differential equation solver for
> Ocatve (lsode) vs my own with these results:
>
> executing an ode solver 1000 times on my P4 1.8:
>
> 22 seconds for Ocatve (i think euler method)
> 8 seconds for my library's euler method
> 12 second
Hi Brian,
Brian T Glenn wrote:
> RFS.
> Package: relay-ctrl
(if this was a new package, I'd go for a better name if it's only for
qmail...)
Is there a specific reason you're not having any dependencies besides
libc? The description sounds like you probably should...
Kind regards
T.
--
Thomas Vi
The following package is lintian and linda clean and has been duploaded
to mentors.debian.net. The original maintainer contacted me asking if I
was ever going to adopt this package, so I wanted to put out another
RFS.
ziege:/etc/apt# apt-cache show relay-ctrl
Package: relay-ctrl
Priority: optio
Lukas Geyer wrote:
>>22 seconds for Ocatve (i think euler method)
I'd think not.
>>8 seconds for my library's euler method
>>12 seconds for my library's runge kutta order 2
>>22 seconds for my library's runge kutta order 4
> probably both more advanced than even plain Runge-Kutta. You should
Well,
Hi
Its the 'C library for numerical analysis' guy again.
I've tested the differential equation solver for
Ocatve (lsode) vs my own with these results:
executing an ode solver 1000 times on my P4 1.8:
22 seconds for Ocatve (i think euler method)
8 seconds for my library's euler method
12 seconds
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 13:47, Halim Boukaram wrote:
[...]
> about the packaging:
> deb, rpm, key, signature?
> I pretty much gave up.
> I'll leave it up to someone else. If anyone's
> interested my projects homepage is:
> http://numerical.port5.com
>
I cannot find any bug filed against wnpp (RFP
Halim Boukaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've tested the differential equation solver for
> Ocatve (lsode) vs my own with these results:
>
> executing an ode solver 1000 times on my P4 1.8:
>
> 22 seconds for Ocatve (i think euler method)
> 8 seconds for my library's euler method
> 12 second
Hi
Its the 'C library for numerical analysis' guy again.
I've tested the differential equation solver for
Ocatve (lsode) vs my own with these results:
executing an ode solver 1000 times on my P4 1.8:
22 seconds for Ocatve (i think euler method)
8 seconds for my library's euler method
12 seconds
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 05:06:06AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> >What are .acs files when they're at home? General data goes in either
> >/usr/share or /usr/lib, depending on the architecture-specificity.
> >
> They're uncompiled script files. It the case of the .acs
Matthew Palmer wrote:
What are .acs files when they're at home? General data goes in either
/usr/share or /usr/lib, depending on the architecture-specificity.
They're uncompiled script files. It the case of the .acs files in the
acc package, they're basically a string of #defines not unlik
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 04:19:19AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
> >If they're the typical .h files, /usr/include/acc would be as good a place
> >as any.
> >
> They're not, they're .acs files. I think I'm going to rename the package
What are .acs files when they're at home
Benjamin Cutler wrote:
The code is originally Copyright Raven, not Activision. Activision is
only mentioned in the EULA. Nowhere in the actual source is Activision
mentioned at all. But if I can't get a satisfactory response from
Raven fairly soon, I'll see what Activision has to say, not that
Matthew Palmer wrote:
Neither of those files grants your the right to make unlimited copies of the
original source, let alone distribute modified versions. The "addendum"
might be considered to allow unmodified distribution, but it contradicts the
previous EULA. As such, it is not suitable for
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 03:04:50AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
> "acc" has a somewhat unclear license regarding distribution and
> modification. It includes both a EULA that sounds like a commercially
> purchased binary, and another license file that basically says "modify
> it, but don't sell
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 05:06:06AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> >What are .acs files when they're at home? General data goes in either
> >/usr/share or /usr/lib, depending on the architecture-specificity.
> >
> They're uncompiled script files. It the case of the .acs
Matthew Palmer wrote:
What are .acs files when they're at home? General data goes in either
/usr/share or /usr/lib, depending on the architecture-specificity.
They're uncompiled script files. It the case of the .acs files in the
acc package, they're basically a string of #defines not unlike C
Ok, I found a few pieces of related software that I'd like to package
up. They rely on a program called ZDoom, which I believe somebody else
is intending to package soon-ish. It's a very enhanced source port of
Doom. I'm pretty sure the binary packages belong in contrib, as they
rely on the com
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 04:19:19AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
> >If they're the typical .h files, /usr/include/acc would be as good a place
> >as any.
> >
> They're not, they're .acs files. I think I'm going to rename the package
What are .acs files when they're at home
Benjamin Cutler wrote:
The code is originally Copyright Raven, not Activision. Activision is
only mentioned in the EULA. Nowhere in the actual source is Activision
mentioned at all. But if I can't get a satisfactory response from
Raven fairly soon, I'll see what Activision has to say, not that
Matthew Palmer wrote:
Neither of those files grants your the right to make unlimited copies of the
original source, let alone distribute modified versions. The "addendum"
might be considered to allow unmodified distribution, but it contradicts the
previous EULA. As such, it is not suitable for a
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 03:04:50AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
> "acc" has a somewhat unclear license regarding distribution and
> modification. It includes both a EULA that sounds like a commercially
> purchased binary, and another license file that basically says "modify
> it, but don't sell
Ok, I found a few pieces of related software that I'd like to package
up. They rely on a program called ZDoom, which I believe somebody else
is intending to package soon-ish. It's a very enhanced source port of
Doom. I'm pretty sure the binary packages belong in contrib, as they
rely on the com
35 matches
Mail list logo
