Hi André, On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 17:38 +0200, Andre Espaze wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 12:00 +0200, Andre Espaze wrote: > > > Hello Adam, > > > > > > > > Then what would be the relevant place for submitting patches of the > > > > > remaining modules? Is it a good idea to send them to the bugtracker > > > > > like I did for the kernel? Or could I let them on the Mercurial > > > > > repository of http://www.python-science.org/project/salome-packaging? > > > > > > > > I think the Debian bug tracker is better for me, I find it easier to see > > > > them and give feedback this way, and it's more of a standard Debian way > > > > of doing things. > > > I have enclosed in the 'salome-packaging-0.2.tar.gz' archive the patches > > > updated to the 5.1.4 version for the KERNEL, GUI, GEOM, MED, SMESH and > > > VISU modules. Once I get your agreement, I plan to send that archive to > > > upstream because I am around half way of the porting task, with around > > > 50 patches on 100. Moreover most of the essential modules are working. > > > My concern is now to know which kind of patches are going to be accepted > > > before continuing. > > > > > > The patches come with a documentation explaining briefly their > > > meaning. Then the steps on how to build and run every module on Debian > > > sid are described. I did not use the tools in the Debian packaging > > > system (debian/rules, fakeroot, git-buildpackage, quilt) in order to > > > ease the review process. Instead, I imitate the building process > > > by listing commands. By that way, I hope that it will be possible > > > to discuss with upstream on a specific point by directly using > > > the commands provided by their build system. > > > > Thank you for taking on this huge task! I can see that you've put an > > enormous amount of work into making the patches really helpful for > > upstream. > > > > My only concern about the whole thing is that the -debian-dirs patches > > right now are not in good shape for upstream, so I think we should > > figure out how to make them more generic using libdir and bindir before > > sending them in. This will be very tricky for source code files, like > > C++ code. The best way to do this will probably be to use -DBINDIR=... > > and -DLIBDIR=... where those are substituted in the Makefile by > > configure. > Ok, it sounds good. > > > > I'll see about converting those patches in this way. In the meantime, I > > think everything else is ready to go in. Thanks again for a great piece > > of work, and apologies again for the delay in getting this feedback to > > you. > Are you working on those patches or may I try to help you? From now, > I understand that I should wait a little more before sending the first > release. By the end of the month, I can also send patches that are ready > to go in if you would prefer that option.
I am not working on these patches (just trying to get this 5.1.3-11 release out the door), so feel free to go ahead. I think it makes sense to send in the patches without these, then add them later; but if you think they will more readily accept them all at once, feel free to do it that way. -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
