Bug#644943: Please switch source package to OCE

[D. Barbier]

On 2011/10/11 Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> Dear Denis,
>
> On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 01:20 +0200, D. Barbier wrote:
>> Package: src:opencascade
>> Version: 6.5.0.dfsg-2
>> Severity: wishlist
>>
>> Hello Adam,
>>
>> As you know, several community members have launched a fork called
>> OpenCascade Community Edition (OCE)
>>   https://github.com/tpaviot/oce
>> I am a member of this project, one of our goals had been to improve
>> portability and support as many architectures as possible, and IIRC
>> all Debian patches have been applied.
>> IMO it will be much easier to maintain OCE as a downstream.  To be
>> honest I am not interested in helping with OCC maintenance since all
>> my projects have switched to OCE, but of course this is your call,
>> hence this bugreport.
>
> I agree, and when we discussed this on debian-science the consensus
> seemed to be that we should go ahead and make this change.  That was of
> course five months ago, my apologies for not taking action since then.

No problem; in the mean time I worked on OCE to improve its
integration with other software.  And now that it is in a pretty good
shape IMHO, I would like to push it.

>> The latest release (0.6.0) is source compatible with OCCT 6.5.1,
>> packages which build depends on opencascade should compile just fine
>> with OCE, the only visible change is that we replaced Autotools by
>> CMake.
>
> Okay, thanks.
>
> I think the best way to do this is for me to upgrade the upstream branch
> of the git repository to OCCT 6.5.1, then switch from that to OCE 0.6.0
> using a version epoch.
>
> Given the modest goals of OCE (i.e. no new features or major divergence
> from OCCT), we certainly don't need to change the binary package names.
> I don't think we need to even chance the source package name, but other
> opinions may vary.
>
> Denis (and others on the CC list), what do you think?  Can we keep the
> same source package name, unless/until OCE diverges away from the main
> OCCT?

I have mixed feelings about package names.  OCE developers decided to
not use OCC or OpenCascade names in order to make it clear that this
product is not endorsed by OpenCascade SAS.  On the other hand, it is
of course much more convenient to keep the same names.  My preference
goes to s/opencascade/oce/ in source and binary package names though.

Denis