I've started a bug on the bug-tracker collecting all current installation issues. Everyone's encouraged to add their installation woes to this list.
http://paraview.org/Bug/view.php?id=9998 Utkarsh On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Michael Wild <[email protected]> wrote: > Just for the record: > > When you do so, please remember that Qt-cocoa needs the qt_menu.nib > directory in the Resources. Also, I think I had trouble with > QT_QTCLUCENE_LIBRARY not being included in the bundle and a missing empty > qt.conf file (to prevent Qt from loading png/tiff plugins). > > Michael > > > On 4. Dec, 2009, at 18:00 , [email protected] wrote: >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 11:54:53 -0500 >> From: Utkarsh Ayachit <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Paraview] cpack not adapted yet to branding commit? >> To: Sven Buijssen <[email protected]> >> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Message-ID: >> <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> Sven, >> >> If I remember correctly, in my emails I did mention that the >> installation rules are broken and they will be fixed soon (~ 1 month). >> We are planning on a general cleanup and restructuring of the install >> rules to make sure it packages are generated correctly on all >> platforms. >> >> Utkarsh >> >> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Sven Buijssen >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I noticed that since Utkarsh branding commit the tar/rpm-packages created >>> by >>> means of 'make package'/'cpack -G TGZ'/... at the end of a nightly >>> automatic >>> build are considerably smaller, 30-50% depending on the architecture. In >>> particular, they do not contain a paraview binary any more, but in the >>> bin >>> subdirectory merely: >>> >>> bin/lproj >>> bin/pvbatch >>> bin/pvdataserver >>> bin/pvpython >>> bin/pvrenderserver >>> bin/pvserver >>> bin/smTestDriver >>> >>> Happens with cmake 2.6.4 and 2.8.0 on 6 different Unix platforms. >>> >>> ParaView itself builds just fine on these platforms (by now), it's just >>> that the >>> packaging mechanism seems to be broken. Given that Utkarsh's pre- and >>> post-branding commit mails on the developer mailing list nor the pdf >>> attachment >>> listing the internal document >>> >>> http://www.paraview.org/ParaView3/index.php/ParaView-based_Applications mentions >>> changes in the cpack mechanism, can anyone confirm my observation? >>> >>> Sven >>> > > _______________________________________________ Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at: http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://www.paraview.org/mailman/listinfo/paraview
