Lisandro, 2011/9/11 Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer <perezme...@gmail.com>: > On Sáb 10 Sep 2011 17:32:30 Anton Gladky escribió: >> I propose to remove paraview-dev at all and include all files into the >> paraview-binary, like it was in previous versions of paraview. > > That sounds like a very bad decision. Header files should be provided by the > -dev package. > > This allows a user to get only the binaries when she installs the foo package > (foo being paraview in this case) and the header files only when necessary. If > the header files are provided by the same package, it means that the buildd > (or anyone wanting to B-D on paraview) must install a lot of unused stuff.
Agree. That was the initial plan. We are 80% done with Anton's work. Just some minor cleanups remains. > Now ParaViewConfig.cmake should be installed by paraview-dev. To help the > transition, all the packages that currently build-depend on paraview should be > filled a normal bug, raised to important in ~3 or 4 weeks and then to serious > ~3 or 4 weeks later. It is customary to user-tag the bugs so as to follow the > transition. Great. We'll keep this bug open as serious to prevent transition to testing. Is that an acceptable solution or should I fill a ROM request and re-upload paraview to experimental ? > After that is achieved, src:paraview can be uploaded with the dev package > providing the header files and ParaViewConfig.cmake. As said above, paraview is already in unstable. I need a little more time to test vtkedge and other package that build paraview plugins. Thanks -- Mathieu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
