[Pkg-scicomp-devel] paraview update

[Christophe Prud'homme]

Ondrej,



On Feb 15, 2008 11:09 PM, Ondrej Certik <ondrej at certik.cz> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> praview from svn finally builds for me, when a fixed openmpi got into
> the archive today.

Ok we are on the same track then :)



> Here are lintian warnings I get:
>
> $ lintian /var/cache/pbuilder/result/paraview_3.2.1-1_amd64.changes
> W: paraview: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/paraview
> W: paraview: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/pqClient.adp
> W: paraview: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/pvdataserver
> W: paraview: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/pvrenderserver
> W: paraview: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/pvserver



>
> W: paraview: non-standard-dir-in-usr usr/plugins/
> W: paraview: file-in-unusual-dir
> usr/plugins/designer/libQVTKWidgetPlugin.so
> W: paraview: package-contains-empty-directory usr/sbin/
> W: paraview: executable-not-elf-or-script ./usr/bin/pqClient.adp
> W: paraview: spelling-error-in-description succesfully successfully
> W: paraview: new-package-should-close-itp-bug
>
>
> We need to write manpages and move the /usr/plugins somewhere else.
> The rest are minor bug, that should imho be quite easy to fix.\

yes right
what do you suggest regarding the plugins ?

Personnally I would suggest
 /usr/share/paraview/plugins
which seems standard (qt,...)

Also to be consistent, should be remove the -3.2 "extension" or keep it
 we have
/usr/share/doc/paraview
/usr/lib/paraview-3.2
/usr/include/paraview-3.2

and now we would have also
/usr/share/paraview (-3.2)/

I would prefer to get rid of the -3.2 entirely
what is your opinion ?

Best regards
C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-scicomp-devel/attachments/20080216/2fffc36a/attachment-0001.htm