Re: Status of BALLView?
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Michael Banck wrote:
[any comment is exclusively based on your mail - I did not looked at the
code.]
Well, the main issue I still have with this is hijacking debian/rules to
run some scripts in ../debian-upstream/ which do all kinds of things -
e.g. setting $(MAKE) to make -j2 unconditionally.
If I would build a package that contains a debian directory I would ignore
this completely. This could be done in two ways:
1. Rename it to debian-upstream (if not yet done by upstream themselves)
and _copy_ their scripts if needed to debian and later changing
it to my own needs. The package should build even if you would
remove debian-upstream.
2. Provide a get-orig-source target in debian/rules that cleans up
the upstream debian directory completely to replace it later by
my own debian directory.
It also seems to do a
lot of things the upstream Makefiles could do, like installing data or
python stuff etc. - why is this not being done by make install?
Very good question - especially non-Debian users that want to compile the
package on their own will ask this desperately.
Is the ballview_1.2.orig.tar.gz the final 1.2 version now? Where can I
download it (http://www.ballview.org/BALL/Downloads/BV-1.2/ only has
Windows and Mac OS installers it seems).
In any case a get-orig-source target sounds reasonable.
Installing shared libraries under
/build/mbanck/ballview-1.2/lib/Linux-i386-g++_4.2.3...
make[1]: Leaving directory `/build/mbanck/ballview-1.2/source'
make[1]: Entering directory
`/build/mbanck/ballview-1.2/source/PYTHON/EXTENSIONS'
/usr/bin/g++ -pipe -fPIC -I/usr/include/python2.4
-I/usr/include/python2.4 -O3 -Wall -W -pedantic -Wno-long-long
-I/build/mbanck/ballview-1.2/include -I/usr/include
-I/usr/share/qt4/include -I/usr/include/python2.4
-I/usr/include/python2.4 -c sipBALLcmodule.C -o sipBALLcmodule.o
vector3.sip:12:27: error: sipBALLIndex.h: No such file or directory
[...]
make[1]: *** [sipBALLcmodule.o] Error 1
Sounds like verifying whether sipBALLIndex.h exists in
/build/mbanck/ballview-1.2/include or something like that ...
In general, I think ballview makes sense to include in debichem, I'd be
happy doing that.
What exactly do you mean when saying "include in debichem". I personally
have the feeling that debichem is missing a certain amount of documentation
(and yes, my experience with Debian-Med says that it is really hard to get
half of the needed documentation done). According to a private hint
(and finally after making up my mind) the packaging stuff for BALLView
is checked in into Debian-Med SVN at
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debian-med/trunk/packages/ballview/trunk/
but I don't think Debian-Med and debichem should compete in including
their packages into their "own" SVN repository. We have and we will
have probably even more packages that fit in both fields so we should
probably find a reasonable way to fit the needs of both projects.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: