Hi André, First, apologies for the delay in getting back to you on this. I was waiting for an opportunity to sink a good amount of time into reviewing your patches, and it didn't come, until I realized this morning that I had missed your deadline by a day. :-(
On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 12:00 +0200, Andre Espaze wrote: > 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. Thank you for taking on this huge task! I can see that you've put an enormous amount of work into making the patches really helpful for upstream. My only concern about the whole thing is that the -debian-dirs patches right now are not in good shape for upstream, so I think we should figure out how to make them more generic using libdir and bindir before sending them in. This will be very tricky for source code files, like C++ code. The best way to do this will probably be to use -DBINDIR=... and -DLIBDIR=... where those are substituted in the Makefile by configure. I'll see about converting those patches in this way. In the meantime, I think everything else is ready to go in. Thanks again for a great piece of work, and apologies again for the delay in getting this feedback to you. -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
