On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Anton Gladky <gladky.an...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Before I close this bug, could you please confirm this is done on >> purpose ? My intial understanding when you volonteer to help on the >> paraview package, was that paraview package should only contains >> anything needed by paraview application at run time. While >> paraview-dev would be a package for building third party module... > > The idea was to put header-files into the separate binary to unload a > little bit paraview itself. That is it. > > I am not against reshuffling some files between paraview and > paraview-dev. I am just against of strong hard-coding, which can lead > to a mess.
Not sure what you mean by hard-coding. But my plan to be very specific was that building paraview plugin would require the paraview-dev package (and nothing else), while using the paraview plugin would only require the paraview package. Typically the vtkedge or gdcm package would B-D on paraview-dev, while the paraview plugin would simply depends on paraview. Let me work on getting this behavior working back again in vtkedge. Thanks -- Mathieu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
