Hi,
I see that as maintainer of VTK you were not on the CC: list, so I'm
forwarding this email
to you directly: do you think it would be much work to build an
experimental vtk5.8 package?
regards
Alastair McKinstry
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Bug#637397: Possible solutions
Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:48:07 +0000 (UTC)
Resent-From: debian-scie...@lists.debian.org
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:31:59 +0100
From: Alastair McKinstry <alastair.mckins...@sceal.ie>
To: debian-scie...@lists.debian.org, "Steve M. Robbins"
<st...@sumost.ca>, 637...@bugs.debian.org, Sylvestre Ledru
<sylves...@debian.org>
On 2011-08-29 07:14, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 4:35 AM, Steve M. Robbins<st...@sumost.ca> wrote:
I think the rest of this thread got off onto a tangent. In my mind,
the germane question is not why Paraview embeds a patched VTK source
tree but, rather: why is the paraview binary package now installing
the VTK tools like vtkWrapPython?
Indeed, that's the actual issue. Thanks Steve.
Why does a running paraview binary need vtkWrapPython?
That was also my initial question.
Can it be stuck into /usr/lib/paraview to avoid the conflict?
I believe the only outstanding issue is that VTK 5.8 is not released
yet. Therefore vtkWrapPython* tools from ParaView 3.10 are much more
advanced (more options) than that of VTK 5.6.
I am also awaiting VTK 5.8 for VisIt packaging. Perhaps we should consider
doing an vtk5.8 package in experimental, to discover issues and report them
ahead of time to VTK / VisIT / Paraview developers ?
--
Alastair McKinstry ,<alast...@sceal.ie> ,<mckins...@debian.org>
http://blog.sceal.ie
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world
is either a madman or an economist - Kenneth Boulter, Economist.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e5b86bf.2090...@sceal.ie
