[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Salomé packaging



Hello,

Le dimanche 10 janvier 2010 à 23:28 +0100, Nicolas Chauvat a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 02:29:03PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > For those interested, I'm re-doing the Salomé .deb I started three years
> > ...
> > Because I can't do the whole package, I'm putting up the progress I've
> > ...
> > To summarize, I need help with the following:
> >       * ...
> >       * Getting the other modules to configure, compile and install
> >       * Making patches upstream-compatible, and sending them to upstream
> 
> As part of the OpenHPC project[1], Logilab commited itself to package
> Salomé for Debian. We had seen the great work you have done and are
> glad that you are resuming it.
Indeed. Thanks for getting back on this Adam. You can count on me if you
need some help.
Since we are talking about EDF software, Code Saturne is now available
in Debian ;) 

> André Espaze has been developing a connector between Salomé and
> Code_Aster for the past few months. He is about to continue his work
> with the packaging of Salomé. He will have the help of Pierre-Yves
> David. We also have a Debian developer on the team, Alexandre Fayolle,
> but he will not have a lot of time for this particular project in the
> upcoming months.
> 
> I am cc'ing every person involved to make sure everyone can get in
> touch easily. Is debian-science the best place to discuss this topic
> or should we take the discussion off-list?
I am happy to see that on Debian-Science for now ... but we could switch on Debian Science Maintainers
if the conversation starts to be too technical.

> Hopefully, the fact that we have been working with upstream for years
> will help us get this work done more easily.
I hope so too. It is the main problem of Salome packaging: the lack of interest of upstream for our work.

Sylvestre

> -- 
> Nicolas Chauvat
> 
> logilab.fr - services en informatique scientifique et gestion de connaissances  
> 



Reply to: