Hello Adam, > > Then what would be the relevant place for submitting patches of the > > remaining modules? Is it a good idea to send them to the bugtracker > > like I did for the kernel? Or could I let them on the Mercurial > > repository of http://www.python-science.org/project/salome-packaging? > > I think the Debian bug tracker is better for me, I find it easier to see > them and give feedback this way, and it's more of a standard Debian way > of doing things. I have enclosed in the 'salome-packaging-0.2.tar.gz' archive the patches updated to the 5.1.4 version for the KERNEL, GUI, GEOM, MED, SMESH and VISU modules. Once I get your agreement, I plan to send that archive to upstream because I am around half way of the porting task, with around 50 patches on 100. Moreover most of the essential modules are working. My concern is now to know which kind of patches are going to be accepted before continuing.
The patches come with a documentation explaining briefly their meaning. Then the steps on how to build and run every module on Debian sid are described. I did not use the tools in the Debian packaging system (debian/rules, fakeroot, git-buildpackage, quilt) in order to ease the review process. Instead, I imitate the building process by listing commands. By that way, I hope that it will be possible to discuss with upstream on a specific point by directly using the commands provided by their build system. I am open on any of your feedback concerning patches or documentation. Beyond getting the current patches merged into upstream code, my goal is to find how to submit changes that can gain acceptance. All the best, André
salome-packaging-0.2.tar.gz
Description: Binary data