Re: OpenFOAM .com vs .org

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenFOAM .com vs .org

Kurt Kremitzki-2
Hello Héctor,

April 26, 2020 8:05 AM, "Hector Gabriel Espinoza Roman DOCENTE" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello:
>
> I am very happy you put OpenFOAM into Debian. As you might be aware, there are 3 main variants of
> OpenFOAM: openfoam.com (e.g. v1812), openfoam.org (e.g. v7) and openfoam-extend.
>
> Over the last few years I have been in contact mainly with v1812. I had some special needs and I
> found that v7 is ahead v1912 in some fundamental features.
>
> Is it possible that you include OpenFOAM v7 (and v8 in the future) into Debian?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ing. Héctor Espinoza Román, MSc, PhD
> Profesor Universidad de Cartagena

I updated your CC to point at the Debian Science mailing list itself as that's what you probably want rather than the Alioth debian-science-maintainers address.

Switching back from openfoam.com's calendar versioning scheme e.g. v1812 to openfoam.org's semantic versioning scheme e.g. v7 presents a bit of a difficulty, and including both OpenFOAM versions would be too wasteful. From a packaging perspective, the .com variant was better for me after struggling a long time to update to v6, but I understand from a user's standpoint, the .org or -extend variants might be better.

Altogether there are some big problems here, so I would suggest trying to start with something more small and actionable, the particular features you need which are available in v7 but not in v1812 (presumably you meant the version in stable right now, but you mentioned both 1812 and 1912.) It was my understanding that .com regularly pulls in .org code, so generally speaking, there should be feature parity excepting variations caused by release schedules and so forth. Is this not the case for the features you need?

Thank you for reaching out to start this discussion.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenFOAM .com vs .org

Gerber van der Graaf-3
The .extend is a more academic aproach and open to new software for
special purpose CFD problems. It is led by prof Hrvoje Jasak. The .org
is a more conservative aproach and more a top-down managed.

Some years ago I collaborated with Michael Wild in the FreeFOAM project
that converted the .org software with the CMake configuration software
and some other bits to get it easier adapted into the Debian system.
Unfortunately the upstream developers refused to include the
improvements. Finally we left the FreeFOAM project as it included too
much work to keep up with the upstream code.

Therefore all my respect for the developer(s) who continue to include
the OpenFOAM into Debian.

Gerber van der Graaf



On Fri, 2020-05-01 at 18:49 +0000, [hidden email] wrote:

> Hello Héctor,
>
> April 26, 2020 8:05 AM, "Hector Gabriel Espinoza Roman DOCENTE" <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello:
> >
> > I am very happy you put OpenFOAM into Debian. As you might be
> > aware, there are 3 main variants of
> > OpenFOAM: openfoam.com (e.g. v1812), openfoam.org (e.g. v7) and
> > openfoam-extend.
> >
> > Over the last few years I have been in contact mainly with v1812. I
> > had some special needs and I
> > found that v7 is ahead v1912 in some fundamental features.
> >
> > Is it possible that you include OpenFOAM v7 (and v8 in the future)
> > into Debian?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Ing. Héctor Espinoza Román, MSc, PhD
> > Profesor Universidad de Cartagena
>
> I updated your CC to point at the Debian Science mailing list itself
> as that's what you probably want rather than the Alioth debian-
> science-maintainers address.
>
> Switching back from openfoam.com's calendar versioning scheme e.g.
> v1812 to openfoam.org's semantic versioning scheme e.g. v7 presents a
> bit of a difficulty, and including both OpenFOAM versions would be
> too wasteful. From a packaging perspective, the .com variant was
> better for me after struggling a long time to update to v6, but I
> understand from a user's standpoint, the .org or -extend variants
> might be better.
>
> Altogether there are some big problems here, so I would suggest
> trying to start with something more small and actionable, the
> particular features you need which are available in v7 but not in
> v1812 (presumably you meant the version in stable right now, but you
> mentioned both 1812 and 1912.) It was my understanding that .com
> regularly pulls in .org code, so generally speaking, there should be
> feature parity excepting variations caused by release schedules and
> so forth. Is this not the case for the features you need?
>
> Thank you for reaching out to start this discussion.
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenFOAM .com vs .org

Hector Gabriel Espinoza Roman DOCENTE
Thanks Kurt for posting this to the Debian Science mailing list.

Thanks to all for their replies. And thanks again for making OpenFOAM available in Debian.

Let us compare this file of v7 (OpenFOAM-org)
with this file of v1912 (OpenFOAM-com)
both versions should be comparable for a given instant in time (around December 2019)
v7 file has something called Function1 which allows time-variation in the constraints and v1912 does not have that.
Adding to the mix the history of of v7 file
we can see that  the Function1 functionality was added on December 2018 to OpenFOAM-org. One year has passed and OpenFOAM-com does not have it.

I think that feature is very important to make simulations start smoothly and avoid overshots and undershots that can cause artificial instabilities.

I can add that later on I compiled OpenFoam v7 in Fedora 28 with no issues at all. I thought I was going to run into many issues.

Anyway, if it is not possible add both versions, no problem. Let us assure Debian keeps at least the one it is now.

Sincerely,

Ing. Héctor Espinoza Román, MSc, PhD
Profesor Universidad de Cartagena


El vie., 1 may. 2020 a las 17:49, Gerber van der Graaf (<[hidden email]>) escribió:
The .extend is a more academic aproach and open to new software for
special purpose CFD problems. It is led by prof Hrvoje Jasak. The .org
is a more conservative aproach and more a top-down managed.

Some years ago I collaborated with Michael Wild in the FreeFOAM project
that converted the .org software with the CMake configuration software
and some other bits to get it easier adapted into the Debian system.
Unfortunately the upstream developers refused to include the
improvements. Finally we left the FreeFOAM project as it included too
much work to keep up with the upstream code.

Therefore all my respect for the developer(s) who continue to include
the OpenFOAM into Debian.

Gerber van der Graaf



On Fri, 2020-05-01 at 18:49 +0000, [hidden email] wrote:
> Hello Héctor,
>
> April 26, 2020 8:05 AM, "Hector Gabriel Espinoza Roman DOCENTE" <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello:
> >
> > I am very happy you put OpenFOAM into Debian. As you might be
> > aware, there are 3 main variants of
> > OpenFOAM: openfoam.com (e.g. v1812), openfoam.org (e.g. v7) and
> > openfoam-extend.
> >
> > Over the last few years I have been in contact mainly with v1812. I
> > had some special needs and I
> > found that v7 is ahead v1912 in some fundamental features.
> >
> > Is it possible that you include OpenFOAM v7 (and v8 in the future)
> > into Debian?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Ing. Héctor Espinoza Román, MSc, PhD
> > Profesor Universidad de Cartagena
>
> I updated your CC to point at the Debian Science mailing list itself
> as that's what you probably want rather than the Alioth debian-
> science-maintainers address.
>
> Switching back from openfoam.com's calendar versioning scheme e.g.
> v1812 to openfoam.org's semantic versioning scheme e.g. v7 presents a
> bit of a difficulty, and including both OpenFOAM versions would be
> too wasteful. From a packaging perspective, the .com variant was
> better for me after struggling a long time to update to v6, but I
> understand from a user's standpoint, the .org or -extend variants
> might be better.
>
> Altogether there are some big problems here, so I would suggest
> trying to start with something more small and actionable, the
> particular features you need which are available in v7 but not in
> v1812 (presumably you meant the version in stable right now, but you
> mentioned both 1812 and 1912.) It was my understanding that .com
> regularly pulls in .org code, so generally speaking, there should be
> feature parity excepting variations caused by release schedules and
> so forth. Is this not the case for the features you need?
>
> Thank you for reaching out to start this discussion.
>