Hello Adam, ... >> The second issue is the Debian constraint to build Salome with a HDF5 >> library needing MPI. The corresponding patches (kernel-hdf5-needs-mpi.patch, >> kernel-mpi-includes.patch, kernel-mpi-libs.patch and so on) are >> not so welcomed by upstream.
>Really? Did they give an indication of why? Well, that's a relatively >small patch for us to maintain. >From what I understood, building hdf5 with MPI is considered as unsupported. But I think that we can submit those patches and see if their politics change for a next release. >> Hopefully an alternative way of using >> HDF5 may be provided as suggested by Sylvestre: >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=576004 > Thanks. Unfortunately, the HDF5 group tends to take a long time to > respond to such requests (often many months, even when a patch is > available), so we shouldn't count on this to happen before our next > upload. I have to confess that I had better hope on that point. ... >> In conclusion what could be the organization for welcoming the future >> Salome 5.1.4 release? Should it be progressively ported on a separate >> branch by using the up-to-date sources [2]? Or would you prefer a one-shot >> transition from 5.1.3? > If upstream is not going to accept patches before 5.1.4, then I think > the one-shot transition makes the most sense. But I appreciate your > examination of the upstream git repository to determine in advance what > changes we will need to make in order to port our patches to 5.1.4. Ok, it sounds fine to me. I am going to be unavailable until the end of August, then I can try the 5.1.4 transition at the beginning of September if needed. By the way, the 5.1.4 Salome version is now available at: http://www.salome-platform.org/downloads/salome-v5.1.4 All the best, André -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
