Re: Bug#640195: Change the bug 640195 severity to normal
Dear Mathieu,
> Could you please confirm, this is the first time you hear about
> 640488
Yes, I can confirm that. Please, indicate it next time.
> 1. paraview versus convenient copy of VTK. Since you are running to
> get paraview in testing, you must have solved the very difficult issue
> of duplicate vtk import rules in paraviewconfig.cmake file. Could you
> please elaborate on that ?
We do not know, why the upstream decided to use a patched VTK-source.
And I am not really sure, if it is even possible to replace it by
packaged version
without producing a bunch of new bugs.
If it requires a rewriting of a half of paraview, who can do it?
All previous versions of paraview included VTK, and it was not a problem.
Why should 3.10 solve it?
> 2. Could you please also elaborate on the status of paraview-python
> package ? When should users prefer this package over the one from vtk
> ? Can a user extend vtk independently of paraview ? How should one
> deal with the the fact that paraview does not use VTK 5.8 ABI ?
If you mean, that paraview-python and python-vtk are conflicting,
well... it is a topic for
new m/w bug.
I just needed an information about 640488. Sorry, I did not know that.
Bye
Anton
Reply to: