I have a package under review/revisement for OCCT 7.2 in Debian Sid (Unstable). Once this gets in to Sid, it also means the package will be in the upcoming Ubuntu 18.04 Bionic Beaver as well as being available in daily builds before the release. Hopefully this will help make sure 0.17 will be available in both Ubuntu 18.04 as well as the maybe-not-that-far-off Debian 10 release.
kkremitzki wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:32 pm
I have a package under review/revisement for OCCT 7.2 in Debian Sid (Unstable).
Great!
kkremitzki wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:32 pm
I mentioned it in Gitter/IRC but figured it was worth posting here as well:
Yes, definitely, I can't keep up with the forums now days. I can't speak for others but I like having one central place to go to communicate, so I only use the forums. I haven't used IRC for several years. We had to use it to communicate when our forum system went down due to problems at SourceForge, back when we were still using SourceForge.
kkremitzki wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:32 pm... Debian's new GitLab instance at salsa.debian.org, which means learning the git-buildpackage tool gbp and revising the package to use it (via https://salsa.debian.org/kkremitzki-guest/opencascade) but hopefully the package will be available in the next 2 weeks.
I am surprised something like this is allowed by the occt corp. Their repo is only available to signatories of the CLA. I would think exposing a clone to the public would be restricted, but I don't know.
kkremitzki wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:32 pm... Debian's new GitLab instance at salsa.debian.org, which means learning the git-buildpackage tool gbp and revising the package to use it (via https://salsa.debian.org/kkremitzki-guest/opencascade) but hopefully the package will be available in the next 2 weeks.
I am surprised something like this is allowed by the occt corp. Their repo is only available to signatories of the CLA. I would think exposing a clone to the public would be restricted, but I don't know.
Just prior to the Holidays, I worked with Andrey Betenev, the Opencascade Kernel project manager, to enable the integration of OCCT 7.2 into the Homebrew package manager on macOS. Andrey endorsed source access for this purpose (in fact, Andrey worked internally at Opencascade to fix gitweb access so it returns an identical payload each time it is invoke for sha verification by package managers).
Finally, I want to confirm that this is an approved means for providing Homebrew integration. In other words, we will be in compliance with your licensing terms if we use the gitweb interface to build from sources for the Homebrew formula/distribution.
Hello Bruce,
Using GitWeb to download source snapshots is fully compliant with our rules, and has always been a recommended way to access OCCT for people who needs more than official release but do not have or do not need full access to Git. (The standard way of downloading official version still requires authentication -- we need this to have at least partial statistics on OCCT user base.)
Best Regards,
Andrey
As an aside, Andrey was super responsive and very helpful - a real pleasure to work with him.
blacey wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:49 pm
Just prior to the Holidays, I worked with Andrey Betenev, the Opencascade Kernel project manager, to enable the integration of OCCT 7.2 into the Homebrew package manager on macOS.....
Finally, I want to confirm that this is an approved means for providing Homebrew integration. In other words, we will be in compliance with your licensing terms if we use the gitweb interface to build from sources for the Homebrew formula/distribution.
Hello Bruce,
Using GitWeb to download source snapshots is fully compliant with our rules, and has always been a recommended way to access OCCT for people who needs more than official release but do not have or do not need full access to Git. (The standard way of downloading official version still requires authentication -- we need this to have at least partial statistics on OCCT user base.)
Best Regards,
Andrey
As an aside, Andrey was super responsive and very helpful - a real pleasure to work with him.
Somebody has signed the CLA and got access to the official occt git repo. They have then cloned that repo into the debian gitlab framework and that repo is public. Too me, that is not the same as using the gitweb interface of the official occt repo to download snapshots. Again, I don't know the policy, but I am curious as debian seems to be pretty cautious in these matters.
tanderson69 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:51 pm
Somebody has signed the CLA and got access to the official occt git repo. They have then cloned that repo into the debian gitlab framework and that repo is public. Too me, that is not the same as using the gitweb interface of the official occt repo to download snapshots. Again, I don't know the policy, but I am curious as debian seems to be pretty cautious in these matters.
If that somebody was me, then no, I did not need to sign a CLA in order to integrate Opencascade into Homebrew Opencascade endorsed the source access for package management because they use an LGPL license and effectively that was my point I believe one only has to sign their CLA in order to contribute to OpenCascade so they own one's contributions. That said, definitely a fair question so Kurt may want to confirm with Opencascade directly.
Hopefully they won't mind. My guess at their intended purpose of the CLA really affects those who might push code to their repo, not pull, so I'm assuming the only reason they don't allow anonymous clones is to save on bandwidth. It would be nice for Debian/Ubuntu/FreeCAD/other downstream package maintainers/etc to be able to see the commit logs in the event troubleshooting or a bug fix is needed.
Like my FreeCAD work? I'd appreciate any level of support via Patreon, Liberapay, or PayPal! Read more about what I do at my blog.
wmayer wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:56 pm
Then we should also have a look at the compiler warnings we get for the travis builds. Most of them is due to flaws in OpenCascade or Salome which we can ignore for now...
Opencascade endorsed the source access for package management because they use an LGPL license and effectively that was my point 
