Re: Bug#638883: Bug#506992: vtk: diff for NMU version 5.6.1-6.1
On 2011/8/28 Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Steve M. Robbins <steve@sumost.ca> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 08:18:04AM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>> VTK ships a convenient FTGL 1.32 version (April 23 2002),
>>
>> I guess the question really is twofold:
>>
>> 1. Are there any patches to 1.32 in the VTK tree?
>
> no. I do not believe upstream has worked on using a new ftgl.
I do not understand your answer. According to logs, they patched ftgl
when they included it (June 2002), sent most of their patches
upstream, and these patches appeared in FTGL 1.4 (August 2002).
But VTK developers never managed to update their copy. And yes, there
are VTK patches which have not been merged into FTGL.
>>> while debian
>>> archive contains 2.1.3 since 2008-05-03
>>> The API changed a bit.
>>
>> 2. Is upgrading the lib going to break any hidden assumptions made by VTK?
>
> likely/maybe ?
>
>> Certainly it's good to remove duplicate library copies, but we should
>> be careful not to introduce regressions. If this effort is successful,
>> please send it upstream; c.f. http://www.vtk.org/Bug/view.php?id=3824
>
> As said previously, I believe #506992 is starting to block other
> packages, so it would be nice to make some progress on this. My
> suggestion was to remove convenient sqlite copy, and use a lintian
> override for ftgl and re-upload.
>
> Denis, did you made any progress on ftgl patch ? Do you have any
> comment on Steve's points ?
Honestly I am not willing to follow Steve's plan. I can still help
replacing vtkftgl by pristine FTGL and fixing bugs when they are
reported, if this is considered useful, but I won't spend time in
trying to upgrade their patches to latest FTGL.
And I am now very busy until the early September :(
Denis
Reply to: