Dear Anton, Here is a summary of the status of paraview from my point of view.
1. I can no longer build vtkedge. This has been reported as 640488 (severity serious) by doko. The bug should be extremely clear, as you are now working on paraview package. It is also clear that the issue is in the paraview package itself. Which explain the reason of bug 640195. Why did I prefer two bugs instead of one ? In the past I had numerous reports (with an 's') against gdcm or vtkedge because the cmake import rules for vtk package or paraview package were bogus. This is why I prefer to keep one (and only one) bug open with a clear title to prevent any new duplicates, and set up a very nice and clear block relation, this did work quite well in the past. Correct me if I am wrong here, but I believe that 640488 is severity serious and as such 640195 should be serious. I do believe that all paraview package 3.10.1-* so far are in bad shape. This should also be relatively clear from the numerous private emails we had on the subject. paraview package is not only a client, but it is also an extensible platform (as in the past on the 3.8 release). 2. I can no longer build gdcm/paraview extension. You should know that as we have discussed about this, sorry to repeat myself. You may ask why there is still no gdcm-paraview module in debian. The reason is quite simple, gdcm has been stuck in unstable for months, because of 506992. And for other reasons, including my fault when I messed up the source upload of paraview 3.8.0. Don't get me wrong but when you say: ... > No reasons for this bug to be a serious [1] and not to let > testing-users to get 3.10-version soon. ... I see it from my prospective, as trying to get a half-baked paraview in testing, which means this will get my job on package such as gdcm or vtkedge even harder as paraview has entered testing. 3. Again when I quote your message: ... > Please, discuss on the list before changing the severity. ... Could you please confirm, this is the first time you hear about 640488, could you also please confirm you do not see any relation in between 640488 and paraview package. Did I not mention this type of issue will arise. Did I not communicate on public mailing lists [1], [4] ? 4. You sent an email on Fri, 9 Sep 2011 20:34:54 +0200 [2], asking the reason why the bug was set to important (see above if this is still not clear). Then on Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:23:51 +0200 [3] you decided I did not need to answer, and therefore you decided to change it back to normal. Did you see *any* email from me lately stating that I was working pretty hard on paraview to get it back into shape. I believe you did see those emails as can be seen from the git-commit history of paraview. I would really hope now, that you stop calling me a liar, and acknowledge that I do communicate, early and often and in the very mailing list you referred to in your statement. I would like also to point out that you left me a little less than 17 hours to respond to your inquiry, would you agree, this is very little time ? Don't get me wrong on this, all I would like is have vtk & paraview in much better shape as they are. But I cannot concentrate on working on paraview or vtk if people from my own team are working against what I believe are the goals of debian. As per your request, I did express my opinion publicly (I did not know you preferred this over private emails). Now, I would like to have your opinion on paraview package. I did ask for your opinion in the past [1], I am still looking for answer on the following issues: 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 ? Could 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 ? (1) and (2) are the two main reasons which makes me thing paraview 3.10-* are not currently ready for testing. Thanks for your reading, -M [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg938336.html [2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=640195#65 [3] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=640195#70 [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2011/08/msg00055.html On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Anton Gladky <[email protected]> wrote: > severity 640195 normal > thanks > > No reasons for this bug to be a serious [1] and not to let > testing-users to get 3.10-version soon. > Please, discuss on the list before changing the severity. > > [1] http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities > Anton > > > > -- > debian-science-maintainers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers > -- Mathieu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CA+7wUsy1FO6+Rvo_vbVV=vg4ejpl65zg0xx3zrov7kqsq7g...@mail.gmail.com
