Bug#457075: Question on Salome package organization

[Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org>]

Le lundi 26 avril 2010 à 13:18 -0400, Adam C Powell IV a écrit :
> Greetings again,
> 
> salome 5.1.3-6 is up at http://lyre.mit.edu/~powell/salome/ .  The
> package is big and ugly and kludgey, but I've tested it a bit and
> confirmed that it runs from the menu.
> 
> I built it with -sa and closed the ITP bug in the changelog, so it
> should be ready for its first upload.  The question is: should I upload
> it?
> 
> Here are the arguments as I see them.  For uploading: 
>       * It seems to work (run), and thus can meet users' needs 
>       * Quicker reply from ftp-masters on copyright and other uploading
>         issues 
>       * Broader testing, especially if it gets into squeeze 
>       * Possibly more devs interested in helping with debugging and
>         package development 
>       * Use of the BTS to track issues 
>       * It will take a lot of work to fix some of the issues below,
>         let's work on them together
> 
> Against uploading: 
>       * The package is buggy!  In particular, module loading
>         requires .so files, so one needs to install about 100 MiB worth
>         of -dev packages in order to run it 
>       * Package layout is not finalized, as demonstrated below 
>       * Shared library versioning isn't even finalized...
> 
> In short, I think this package is about where OpenCASCADE and OpenOffice
> were when first uploaded: crude and simple packaging of a very useful
> piece of software, with plans for big packaging changes.  I'd like to go
> ahead and upload in about 24 hours unless anyone has a strong objection.
Well done for this packaging!
I say, the sooner, the better!

One more argument: we could plug Aster into Salome thanks to pylotage.

If we are lucky, it could even make it for Squeeze!

Sylvestre