On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 16:19 +0200, trophime wrote: > On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 11:24 -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-09-09 at 09:24 +0200, trophime wrote: > > > On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 14:26 -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > > > Hello Christophe, > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 10:22 +0200, trophime wrote: > > > > > Package: salome-dev > > > > > Version: 5.1.3-11 > > > > > Severity: wishlist > > > > > > > > > > It will be nice to include adm_local directory for each salome "base" > > > > > modules > > > > > in the salome-dev package. This will greatly simplify the > > > > > developpement and > > > > > packaging of new plugins since the configuration step almost refers to > > > > > MODULE/adm_local. > > > > > Otherwise we ave to include some MODULE_SRC in the src package for > > > > > the plugins > > > > > (see what I have done for salome-code-aster on svn debian science) > > > > > > > > This is a good idea. Right now the package puts the .m4 files all > > > > together in one big salome.m4 in /usr/share/aclocal (because > > > > "check_KERNEL.m4" and "check_GUI.m4" are far too generic names). But > > > > something like /usr/share/salome/[module]/adm_local or > > > > just /usr/share/salome/adm_local could include more than just the .m4 > > > > files. > > > > > > > > /usr/share/salome/adm_local is the easiest place to put these. Will > > > > that work for you? > > > > > > I would rather try to stick as much as possible to the "original" > > > installation. So my feelings are that adm_local from MODULE_SRC should > > > be included in /usr/share/salome/MODULE_SRC. > > > > It's pretty easy either way. André, as someone closer to upstream, what > > do you think makes more sense? Right now, all of the adm_local files > > install into /usr/adm_local, which violates the FHS. Should they go > > into a single directory under /usr/share/salome or into separate module > > directories? > > > > As I see it, the trade-off is: > > * Using MODULE_SRC eliminates module conflicts, of which there are > > many (see below) > > * As Christophe pointed out, YACS installs an adm_local directory > > in /usr/share/salome/HXX...SRC/adm_local so MODULE_SRC is more > > consistent with this > > * Using a single directory /usr/share/salome/adm_local makes it > > more obvious where the files are -- but modules which build and > > install later could overwrite the earlier-installed files > > > > > Your idea of putting all m4 files together in a single > > > directory /usr/share/salome is nice and much more elegant than mine. > > > > They are actually all in a single *file* called salome.m4 which is > > in /usr/share/aclocal with all of the other system .m4 files. > > > > > However it seems to me that they are some m4 files sharing the same name > > > but with slightly different in several MODULE_SRC. So I expect your > > > solution to require a lot of chances... and it may have some drawback on > > > the overall installation. > > > > Indeed, the multiple different GUI checks are annoying; I think I > > patched around that, so they all use the check from the GUI module. > > > > > For instance I had to patch several m4 files > > > for KERNEL, GUI, GEOM, MED and SMESH to package CodeAster and Saturne > > > plugins and GHS3DPLUGIN and I wonder what are the impact of these > > > changes to salome packaging? > > > > Please send the patches and we'll incorporate them into Salomé, maybe > > discussing some changes with you if there are any conflicts. > > I attached the patches I used that code-aster, saturne and GHS3D > plugins.
Thanks Christophe. These are really good patches to check for the files installed in their Debian locations. I think blsurf, ghs3d and hexotic are all non-free, so I wasn't planning to support them. Does code-aster or saturne require any of them? -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
