OpenCASCADE and applications depending on it

Richard Shaw hobbes1069 at gmail.com
Sun Feb 16 19:41:38 UTC 2014


On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Sandro Mani <manisandro at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 16.02.2014 14:56, Richard Shaw wrote:
>
>  [snip]
>
>  I wonder if we could do a staged review instead, for instance, have a
> review request just for the kernel, then create a separate review request
> for smesh but make the kernel review request a blocker for it. I think this
> would break the reviews into manageable chucks but preserve the source as
> is while making sure each module gets reviewed. Otherwise we would have to
> get all of them reviewed at one time.
>
>  The main difference from the traditional review would be we would not
> need a SCM request after the first, we would just be getting the OK that
> the module was good and met the guidelines.
>
> So basically in the end you would merge the spec files together into one
> big thing? Or possibly have one master spec with many small specs which are
> included with %include ?
>

Nothing quite that complicated. I would say the first review would be
called just "salome" but in the text specify that this review is for the
kernel only. The other reviews would also include the same spec but would
have the additional "guts" needed for the new modules being reviewed. Since
the kernel review would be a blocker to any subsequent reviews, that should
keep things sufficiently serialized otherwise things could get very messy.
We need to make sure that during the review cycle for the kernel that any
changed required make their way into the later reviews.



>>  I didn't need the omniORB patch but I did have to do a quick package of
>> omniORBpy which is under review:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=783064
>>
>>  Oh right, I see I also have a omniORBpy src.rpm in my work-in-progress
>> folder, I guess I also hit that dependency down the road. Your review seems
>> stalled, if you want I can take over.
>>
>
>  Up to you, it's not my review I just happened to find it while checking
> for current review requests before submitting my own.
>
>    I've commented in BZ.
>

I saw that! Thanks.


>
>  [snip]
>>
>
>  Of course I'd like to see the whole thing in Fedora but my immediate
> need is for smesh. I've got an open review for OpenCascade community
> edition already going and need both for FreeCAD, which currently bundles
> smesh.
>
>  If we can get a RR going for the kernel and smesh (does smesh have any
> other dependencies?)
>
> From my work-in-progess spec, I see
> %package smesh
> Summary: The Salome smesh (meshing) module
> Requires: salome-gui%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
> Requires: salome-geom%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
> Requires: salome-med%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
>
> So the roadmap is basically to get python-omniORB and OCE in fedora, and
> then we can start moving with salome-kernel and the rest.
>

Sounds like a plan!

Looking at this, we don't necessarily need to do the reviews 1 for 1 per
module, but perhaps make smesh and it's requirements one "review". What do
you think?

Thanks,
Richard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140216/18ea5cc2/attachment.html>


More information about the devel mailing list