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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CALF6qJmV3P6aXzUB+Qub12q=oyl+b7i6dkeg7rjyan9uaez...@mail.gmail.com
