[vtkusers] vtk3.2 Beta rpm feedback

[Prabhu Ramachandran]

hi,

>>>>> "James" == James E Fowler <fowler at ece.msstate.edu> writes:

    James> While we're on the subject, here are a few more comments
    James> concerning the RPMs (note: I'm using Red Hat 6.1).

    >> > - connot build any of the c++ examples because the makefile
    >> in > /usr/lib/vtk/graphics/examplesCxx includes
    >> ../../system.make and > ../../user.make which didn't come with
    >> any rpms (same thing > for./imaging/examplesCxx) .

    James> Actually, it appears the Makefile for
    James> /usr/lib/vtk/imaging/examplesCxx is entirely missing from
    James> the vtk-examples RPM.

Well IMHO, including the Makefile is really of not much use.  This is
because each build of vtk is different and creating a Makefile that
works under all situations is complicated.  Even if the system.make,
user.make that were used while making the rpm were included it wouldnt
work.  This is because the way the VTK sources are organized.  It is
not possible to precompile all the examples and package them either.
This would simply add to the size of the RPMS. The best option would
be to make a Makefile specifically for the RPM.  This is a bit of a
pain.  However, it is not hard to compile the c++ examples by hand.
So IMHO I think the Makefiles should not be included.

    James> Additionally, the file
    James> /usr/lib/vtk/imaging/examplesCxx/SaveViewerImage.h is also
    James> missing (this is needed to build ImportExport.cxx).

Valid bug.  Easily fixable.

    James> Another suggestion: it would be might be more in tune with
    James> the Linux FHS to move all the examples to /usr/share/vtk
    James> since, as source code, they are architecture independent.

I dont know about the FHS, but in Debian all examples go into
/usr/share/doc/<package>/examples/ would this be okay for the RPMs
too?  

prabhu