Bug#587007: salome: Porting patches to Salome 5.1.4 for upstream inclusion

[Adam C Powell IV]

Hi André,

On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 10:53 -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 09:34 +0200, Andre Espaze wrote:
> I should probably try to quantify the difference between svg and png.
> With svg, after building I get:
> 
> % du -s debian/salome-dev-doc/
> 720516	debian/salome-dev-doc/

With png, I get:

$ du -s debian/salome-dev-doc/
1053360	debian/salome-dev-doc/

So there is a clear and very large benefit to the doc-images-svg
patches, we should keep them, and upstream should consider them.

I'll reply to your other patches soon, thanks for all the hard work!

-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/20100924/34d7a408/attachment.pgp>