OpenFOAM 1812 available in Debian Testing

[kkremitzki]

Hi, I'd appreciate any testing of this package as it's what's soon to be in Debian.

https://launchpad.net/~freecad-communit ... ubuntu/ppa

Please let me know if you want me to upload it for a different Ubuntu version, currently it's just 18.04 and 18.10.

[Kunda1]

FYI, just noticed that the version number '6' was removed from the openfoam debian/ubuntu package name?

[kkremitzki]

I've switched from the openfoam.org version to the openfoam.com version which uses an Ubuntu-like numbering scheme. this .com version 1812 contains and exceeds the code in the .org 6 version. It's kind of complicated, but you might consider .org as analogous to OCE and .com, OCCT.

[kkremitzki]

OpenFOAM 1812 has migrated to Debian Testing. There are a few bugs currently (workaround involves export WM_PROJECT_DIR=/usr/share/openfoam) but otherwise things are looking good! https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/openfoam

[vocx]

I've switched from the openfoam.org version to the openfoam.com version which uses an Ubuntu-like numbering scheme. this .com version 1812 contains and exceeds the code in the .org 6 version. It's kind of complicated, but you might consider .org as analogous to OCE and .com, OCCT.

Is this recommendation still current?

Oliver, the developer of CfdOF sort of recommends the OpenFoam.org version, as per the following post:

...

Thank you. Unfortunately this seems to be a bug in OpenFOAM 1812 affecting the gmshToFoam conversion utility. I see that a fix was committed this morning, so if should be sorted out in the next version. Until then I suggest you uninstall your system 1812 packages and install the Linux packages for OpenFOAM v6 at https://openfoam.org/version/6/. After that, you will need to re-do the cfMesh and HiSA installation.

[kkremitzki]

The OCE/OCCT comparison is a bit much since development is still ongoing for both. In this case it's just a matter of getting the latest release vs a packaged one, that same fix may already be present in the .com sources, and if it isn't I can just add it as a patch, if a link was available.

[vocx]

The OCE/OCCT comparison is a bit much since development is still ongoing for both. In this case it's just a matter of getting the latest release vs a packaged one, that same fix may already be present in the .com sources, and if it isn't I can just add it as a patch, if a link was available.

I understand it for this specific patch, however, the question is more about the philosophy of preferring the .com version over the .org one. The .org one seems to be already neatly packaged in an Ubuntu PPA, and the CfdOF developer recommends it. So, maybe it makes more sense to prefer this one over the .com version. I think it would make sense to at least ask Oliver what his preference is, or what he uses for development.

Does Debian have guidelines for packaging two parallel versions of the same software? Maybe it'd be possible to provide openfoam1812 and openfoam6 as distinct packages.

[kkremitzki]

The OCE/OCCT comparison is a bit much since development is still ongoing for both. In this case it's just a matter of getting the latest release vs a packaged one, that same fix may already be present in the .com sources, and if it isn't I can just add it as a patch, if a link was available.

I understand it for this specific patch, however, the question is more about the philosophy of preferring the .com version over the .org one. The .org one seems to be already neatly packaged in an Ubuntu PPA, and the CfdOF developer recommends it. So, maybe it makes more sense to prefer this one over the .com version. I think it would make sense to at least ask Oliver what his preference is, or what he uses for development.

Does Debian have guidelines for packaging two parallel versions of the same software? Maybe it'd be possible to provide openfoam1812 and openfoam6 as distinct packages.

Where is the openfoam.org PPA, I can't find it?

The codebases are largely the same, in fact the openfoam.com source regularly merges in changes from .org, so i don't think there's any point in maintaining both in Debian, and even if I wanted to it would probably be rejected for the aforementioned reason.

Does he really recommend it in general, or did he just recommend it in the quoted example as a temporary workaround? There's going to be some unevenness in support on different platforms regardless, for example even if I switched back to the openfoam.org sources there could still be diverging behavior between Linux & Windows since that platform needs to run blueCFD for OpenFOAM support.

[vocx]

Where is the openfoam.org PPA, I can't find it?

https://openfoam.org/download/6-ubuntu/
http://dl.openfoam.org/

Well, it is not a PPA in Launchpad, but you can add the repository.

Code: Select all

sudo sh -c "wget -O - http://dl.openfoam.org/gpg.key | apt-key add -"
sudo add-apt-repository http://dl.openfoam.org/ubuntu

The codebases are largely the same, in fact the openfoam.com source regularly merges in changes from .org, so i don't think there's any point in maintaining both in Debian, and even if I wanted to it would probably be rejected for the aforementioned reason.

Does he really recommend it in general, or did he just recommend it in the quoted example as a temporary workaround? There's going to be some unevenness in support on different platforms regardless, for example even if I switched back to the openfoam.org sources there could still be diverging behavior between Linux & Windows since that platform needs to run blueCFD for OpenFOAM support.

Well, I'm really not sure if he prefers one or the other, but I really think he should give his opinion at least. In that quote above he did say, "remove the system one and get the one from .org". Maybe he doesn't know you are the packager, and he thinks the Debian/Ubuntu package is very outdated.

[oliveroxtoby]

The codebases are largely the same, in fact the openfoam.com source regularly merges in changes from .org, so i don't think there's any point in maintaining both in Debian, and even if I wanted to it would probably be rejected for the aforementioned reason.

Does he really recommend it in general, or did he just recommend it in the quoted example as a temporary workaround? There's going to be some unevenness in support on different platforms regardless, for example even if I switched back to the openfoam.org sources there could still be diverging behavior between Linux & Windows since that platform needs to run blueCFD for OpenFOAM support.

The whole issue of OpenFOAM version splits has been quite a contentious one over the years and I don't think it would be fair for me to make a pronouncement on which is better. But happily it seems to me that they currently complement each other, with the Foundation (.org) version seeming to focus on crafting a solid base and the ESI/OpenCFD (.com) version pulling in a bigger feature set on top of that. In CfdOF we don't use any of the extended features so we tended to focus on the .org version for testing, but it would be nice to support both and I haven't seen enough divergence between them for that to be a problem. So far they seem to work equally well for our purposes, apart from that one bug.

I've switched from the openfoam.org version to the openfoam.com version which uses an Ubuntu-like numbering scheme. this .com version 1812 contains and exceeds the code in the .org 6 version. It's kind of complicated, but you might consider .org as analogous to OCE and .com, OCCT.

I think if I were packaging I would have made the same decision - not because the .com version is 'better' but, as you say, because it builds on to the .org version.

Well, I'm really not sure if he prefers one or the other, but I really think he should give his opinion at least. In that quote above he did say, "remove the system one and get the one from .org". Maybe he doesn't know you are the packager, and he thinks the Debian/Ubuntu package is very outdated.

This was just a recommendation of the simplest and most immediate way for this user to get around the bug. I think that the fix will only reflect in the v1906 release, but it will only affect a minority of users who are meshing with gmsh.

The OCE/OCCT comparison is a bit much since development is still ongoing for both. In this case it's just a matter of getting the latest release vs a packaged one, that same fix may already be present in the .com sources, and if it isn't I can just add it as a patch, if a link was available.

A patch would be great! Here is the relevant commit:
https://develop.openfoam.com/Developmen ... 5322aeeeaf