Re: Skip VTK7 and go directly VTK8? Was: Re: vtk6 and vtk7
I agree with Christophe. Paraview/VTK maintenance strategy should
be changed due to convergence between both of packages.
As was mentioned here [1], paraview and some other packages will be
semi-orphaned by me, so feel free to pick them up.
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2017/10/msg00078.html
Thanks
Anton
2017-11-26 9:55 GMT+01:00 Christophe Trophime
<christophe.trophime@lncmi.cnrs.fr>:
> From: "Ghislain Vaillant" <ghisvail@gmail.com>
> To: "Nico Schlömer" <nico.schloemer@gmail.com>, "Gert Wollny"
> <gw.fossdev@gmail.com>
> Cc: dparsons@debian.org, "Debian Science List"
> <debian-science@lists.debian.org>
> Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2017 5:12:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Skip VTK7 and go directly VTK8? Was: Re: vtk6 and vtk7
>
> Or perhaps upstream should re-think its release strategy. How do they expect
> the scientific community to keep up with so frequent major versions, I
> wonder? Anyway.
>
> Meanwhile, let's keep in mind that our distribution of VTK packages is here
> to serve existing packages making use of it (such as Paraview for instance).
> Unless one of these packages suddenly requires a minimum VTK version higher
> than 7, there is no urgency in providing more up-to-date versions.
>
> There is a wrong statement here. VTK is actually not used at all for
> building Paraview.
> The situation is even more complex as Paraview ships a VTK version (eg. 8.0
> for paraview 5.4.1) and
> as the actual paraview-python 5.4.1 requires python-vtk6 which is a
> non-sense!!!
>
> Providing very few changes to paraview package any package using VTK can be
> built on top of ParaView.
>
> There is indeed here a big question of strategy. What shall be done?
> Push upstream (or try on our own) to fix ParaView installation to force use
> of VTK to build ParaView?
> Or provide an alternative VTK through ParaView (in which case, for instance,
> we have already a vtk 8.0 ready to be used)?
>
> Sorry to jump into this discussion but I really think that some work is
> needed for ParaView/VTK, at least to clarify the question of VTK version?
>
> Best
> C
>
> Ghis
>
> Le 25/11/17 à 15:27, Nico Schlömer a écrit :
>
> Thanks Gert for the ping; hopfully they'll get to it soon.
>
> On a related note, VTK has bumped its version to 9.0.0 in master [1], so it
> looks like soon we'll have to catch up with three (!) major versions.
> (Perhaps we'll have to rethink how we package vtk for debian.)
>
> Cheers,
> Nico
>
> [1]
> https://gitlab.kitware.com/vtk/vtk/commit/43ce9dd8f81c2275515f84e7ce2395d8812dcd0d
>
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:44 AM Gert Wollny <gw.fossdev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Nico,
>>
>> Am Dienstag, den 07.11.2017, 13:12 +0000 schrieb Nico Schlömer:
>> > VTK7 is in NEW for two months again with no indication of when it
>> > will be through.
>> Well it is a big package, and it came also with an ITP.
>>
>> > I need VTK for my work and would like to start tweaking the package,
>> > especially since xdmf3 landed in d/copyright::Files-Excluded. (No
>> > idea why.)
>>
>> This is there for some time already, longer then I have been touching
>> this package, but for some reason it is not enabled to use the system
>> version neither, I think there is some bug.
>>
>> > I'm not sure if it's a good idea to mess with the package while in
>> > NEW though. What do you usually do in such situations?
>> If I just need the packages for myself, then I create a local version
>> that might be uploaded as soon as the pakage has cleared the NEW
>> pipeline.
>>
>> Anyway, I'll ping the FTP-master that rejected it the first time.
>>
>> Best,
>> Gert
>>
>
>
Reply to: