Le lundi 26 avril 2010 à 13:18 -0400, Adam C Powell IV a écrit : > Greetings again, > > salome 5.1.3-6 is up at http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/salome/ . The > package is big and ugly and kludgey, but I've tested it a bit and > confirmed that it runs from the menu. > > I built it with -sa and closed the ITP bug in the changelog, so it > should be ready for its first upload. The question is: should I upload > it? > > Here are the arguments as I see them. For uploading: > * It seems to work (run), and thus can meet users' needs > * Quicker reply from ftp-masters on copyright and other uploading > issues > * Broader testing, especially if it gets into squeeze > * Possibly more devs interested in helping with debugging and > package development > * Use of the BTS to track issues > * It will take a lot of work to fix some of the issues below, > let's work on them together > > Against uploading: > * The package is buggy! In particular, module loading > requires .so files, so one needs to install about 100 MiB worth > of -dev packages in order to run it > * Package layout is not finalized, as demonstrated below > * Shared library versioning isn't even finalized... > > In short, I think this package is about where OpenCASCADE and OpenOffice > were when first uploaded: crude and simple packaging of a very useful > piece of software, with plans for big packaging changes. I'd like to go > ahead and upload in about 24 hours unless anyone has a strong objection. Well done for this packaging! I say, the sooner, the better!
One more argument: we could plug Aster into Salome thanks to pylotage. If we are lucky, it could even make it for Squeeze! Sylvestre -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1272316038.1767.28.ca...@zlarin