Re: upgrade orfeotoolbox to 5.0
On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg
<sebastic@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On 06-09-15 13:07, Rashad M wrote:
>> To note that, there is otbice, monteverdi1 and monteverdi2 which uses only
>> a part of all otb libs.
>>
>> For example, see this -
>> https://git.orfeo-toolbox.org/ice.git/blob/HEAD:/CMakeLists.txt#l64
Ok - in that case forget my previous comments: I believe we should
split the package.
>>
>> only "OTBImageIO OTBVectorDataIO OTBProjection OTBStatistics" libs are
>> considered for Ice. It does not need qtwidget or OTBSupervised and many
>> others. So it is better for users to atleast to split qt, commandline,
>> core.
>>
>> Similar is case for monteverdi2 which uses QtWidget but not
>> otbApplicationLauncher{CommandLine/Qt}
>>
>> Having each into separate libs is what modular architecture of OTB is
>> about. Well, that is lot of packages in this case and more work for
>> packagers tracking every new module
>
> That's why we use `dh_install --list-missing`, you'll see newly
> introduced libraries being built but not installed. That's the trigger
> to add new library packages for them.
>
> The extra work to handle more than one shared library in a package is
> neglible over just a signle shared library. Updating the symbols is
> still the same two commands commands to update the symbols file(s) (one
> or more doesn't make a difference).
Since otb uses the release number in the libs, you will have to rename
the .install files and you will pass through bin-new for every
release. That was the extra workI was talking about.
Anyway since there are third party applications I agree we should split.
Kind Regards,
Johan
Reply to: