Bug#640195: ParaViewConfig.cmake disapeared from paraview-* package

[Mathieu Malaterre]

tag 640195 pending
thanks

On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre at debian.org> wrote:
> Le dimanche 04 septembre 2011 à 12:00 +0200, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit :
>> On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Anton Gladky <gladky.anton at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>  Before I close this bug, could you please confirm this is done on
>> >> purpose ? My intial understanding when you volonteer to help on the
>> >> paraview package, was that paraview package should only contains
>> >> anything needed by paraview application at run time. While
>> >> paraview-dev would be a package for building third party module...
>> >
>> > The idea was to put header-files into the separate binary to unload a
>> > little bit paraview itself. That is it.
>> >
>> > I am not against reshuffling some files between paraview and
>> > paraview-dev. I am just against of strong hard-coding, which can lead
>> > to a mess.
>>
>> Not sure what you mean by hard-coding. But my plan to be very specific
>> was that building paraview plugin would require the paraview-dev
>> package (and nothing else), while using the paraview plugin would only
>> require the paraview package. Typically the vtkedge or gdcm package
>> would B-D on paraview-dev, while the paraview plugin would simply
>> depends on paraview.
> I agree with Mathieu that all dev related files should be in
> paraview-dev ;)

I can get vtkedge-paraview module to compile again using:

https://github.com/malaterre/PublicRep/tree/master/debian/paraview/debian

Anton, I will start using your git/debian package repository, using
convention from debian-science as depicted here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2008/05/msg00118.html

Let me know if I should follow any other convention.

Thanks,
-- 
Mathieu