Is there a reference physics list that does not use any optional dataset?

Datasets are supposed to be “optional”. But if all reference physics lists use one or more datasets, they are not really optional. I am curious to know if there is one reference list that does not use any dataset. Thanks, Jing

As far as I am aware there are not - the key dataset is that for ENSDF which is used by G4NuclideTable, so might be used irrespective of physics list.

Shouldn’t we then make G4ENSDFSTATE dataset NOT optional? There is no need to give users an option to choose for this particular dataset. It is small anyway.

Certainly the docs should be updated to note the hard requirement. Longer term, the install/use of datasets is under review, but needs care because there are many different use cases to get right here (from minimal to full HPC, physical to containers).

I understand the complexity of the issue. When I create my Geant4 container Docker, I chose not to include datasets, which results in a 180 MB image. This is nice until people want to run a minimal application and find out that ENSDF is needed.

Now, ENSDF is too small to have significant impact on image size, maybe we can have geant4/geant4:minimal to include ENSDF, and geant4/geant4 to include all datasets.

It would be nice if all geant4 examples can have a docker-compose.yml included to allow users to run docker compose run --rm min to download and run a minimal geant4 container, and docker compose run --rm g4 to download and run a full geant4 container.

For now, the development focus is on producing and releasing rpm/deb packages. With those in place creating docker images becomes easier, though it’s not clear yet that “official” images would be produced (again, because the number of possible use cases is high, and if there are packages, then anyone can roll their own image trivially).

Providing docker-compose files for each example would be a large undertaking given the need to test/support these over a proper timescale (i.e. at least a major release cycle, so 5-10years), on different systems, including GUI and development options. I’m not rejecting the idea, just noting we have to be realistic about what’s possible with current existing requirements and available effort to implement those.

I am looking forward to the rpm/deb packages!

It’s important to have a development focus given limited manpower. The collaboration is doing its best. Thank you guys!

The broader Geant4 users community should be able to help with fulfilling specific user needs. I’ll create physino/geant4:min and physino/geant4 in my free time. I am wondering if I can announce them here when they are done.

In general, are there mechanisms or platforms to coordinate community’s efforts that I am not aware of? For example, there are good discussions scattered around in this forum. What are the mechanisms to integrate them into Geant4 documentations? Most people rely on google index of this forum to find what they want.

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.