[vtkusers] Re: Packaging vtk: patents

[Axel Thimm]

On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 01:40:02PM -0500, Kevin H. Hobbs wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 09:45 -0700, Wylie, Brian wrote:
> > All,
> > 
> > Kitware will certainly chime in here... I think hardly anyone is around
> > (holiday vacations and all...) but this should be no problem. The only
> > issue (to my knowledge) is the mpeg2 writer, everything else in VTK
> > should have no restrictions/patents/bad licenses etc...
> > 
> > I agree, having VTK as part of the Fedora distribution would be super
> > duper.. :)
> 
> Oops, sorry for sending my previous message off list.
> 
> Where should a spec file live? Do we want to make our own spec file to
> live in the VTK and Paraview CVS? Do we want to submit a spec file to
> Fedora and let them maintain it? 

It is all already cooked up. The specfiles that have been submitted are
the same as the ones at ATrpms

http://atrpms.net/name/vtk/
http://atrpms.net/dist/common/vtkdata/

And there are also binary rpms for several Fedora/RHEL distros. Please
give them a test.

Note that the packages as found on ATrpms will have to have the mpeg
support removed in the source code before they make it into Fedora.

> They have CMake in extras, what other build requires do we have?
> 
> Can you tell I think this is a good idea as well?
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.vtk.org/pipermail/vtkusers/attachments/20061228/e06d82a6/attachment.pgp>