tag 640195 pending thanks On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Sylvestre Ledru <[email protected]> wrote: > Le dimanche 04 septembre 2011 à 12:00 +0200, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit : >> On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Anton Gladky <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Before I close this bug, could you please confirm this is done on >> >> purpose ? My intial understanding when you volonteer to help on the >> >> paraview package, was that paraview package should only contains >> >> anything needed by paraview application at run time. While >> >> paraview-dev would be a package for building third party module... >> > >> > The idea was to put header-files into the separate binary to unload a >> > little bit paraview itself. That is it. >> > >> > I am not against reshuffling some files between paraview and >> > paraview-dev. I am just against of strong hard-coding, which can lead >> > to a mess. >> >> Not sure what you mean by hard-coding. But my plan to be very specific >> was that building paraview plugin would require the paraview-dev >> package (and nothing else), while using the paraview plugin would only >> require the paraview package. Typically the vtkedge or gdcm package >> would B-D on paraview-dev, while the paraview plugin would simply >> depends on paraview. > I agree with Mathieu that all dev related files should be in > paraview-dev ;)
I can get vtkedge-paraview module to compile again using: https://github.com/malaterre/PublicRep/tree/master/debian/paraview/debian Anton, I will start using your git/debian package repository, using convention from debian-science as depicted here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2008/05/msg00118.html Let me know if I should follow any other convention. Thanks, -- Mathieu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
