Bug#595909: salome-dev: add path to adm_local files

[Adam C Powell IV]

On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 11:05 +0200, Andre Espaze wrote:
> Hello Adam and Christophe,
> 
> > > > > Package: salome-dev
> > > > > Version: 5.1.3-11
> > > > > Severity: wishlist
> > > > > 
> > > > > It will be nice to include adm_local directory for each salome "base" modules
> > > > > in the salome-dev package. This will greatly simplify the developpement and
> > > > > packaging of new plugins since the configuration step almost refers to
> > > > > MODULE/adm_local.
> > > > > Otherwise we ave to include some MODULE_SRC in the src package for the plugins
> > > > > (see what I have done for salome-code-aster on svn debian science)
> > > > 
> > > > This is a good idea.  Right now the package puts the .m4 files all
> > > > together in one big salome.m4 in /usr/share/aclocal (because
> > > > "check_KERNEL.m4" and "check_GUI.m4" are far too generic names).  But
> > > > something like /usr/share/salome/[module]/adm_local or
> > > > just /usr/share/salome/adm_local could include more than just the .m4
> > > > files.
> > > > 
> > > > /usr/share/salome/adm_local is the easiest place to put these.  Will
> > > > that work for you?
> > > 
> > > I would rather try to stick as much as possible to the "original"
> > > installation. So my feelings are that adm_local from MODULE_SRC should
> > > be included in /usr/share/salome/MODULE_SRC.
> > 
> > It's pretty easy either way.  André, as someone closer to upstream, what
> > do you think makes more sense?  Right now, all of the adm_local files
> > install into /usr/adm_local, which violates the FHS.  Should they go
> > into a single directory under /usr/share/salome or into separate module
> > directories?
> To my point of view, installing the .m4 files in separate module 
> directories like /usr/share/salome/MODULE_SRC makes more sense with
> upstream packaging philosophy. I understand the clearness of a single 
> directory like /usr/share/salome/adm_local but I fear conflicts
> because all modules do not necessarily share the same macro for a same 
> configuration check. 

Well, I think it's a problem that they don't use the same macro in some
cases, like GUI checks...  But I'll go ahead and do it this way anyway.

-Adam
-- 
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Engineering consulting with open source tools
http://www.opennovation.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-science-maintainers/attachments/20100914/75d4796b/attachment.pgp>