BTW, I cannot build ITK+CSwig+Tcl8.5 anymore. I'll check if switching to wrapitk work around the compilation issue with Tk_PhotoSetSize within cswig code.
cheers On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Mathieu Malaterre <mathieu.malate...@gmail.com> wrote: > Steve, > > If you have been reading this thread, what is your point of view ? > Do you think you can move to ITK/WrapITK (this would solve the numpy > vs numarray issue as a side effect) ? > > thanks, > > 2009/11/2 Gaëtan Lehmann <gaetan.lehm...@jouy.inra.fr>: >> >> Le 2 nov. 09 à 09:16, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit : >> >>> Luis, >>> >>> That is terrific ! At least Kitware's roadmap is clear ! Thanks so >>> much. Gaetan, could you remind me (us?) why you choose to developg >>> google/WrapITK instead of directly working on ITK/WrapITK ? >> >> Sure: I made drastic changes in the wrapping process, and it was absolutely >> impossible to make it without breaking things. >> Also, I made most of the work on my spare time, and so I had no idea about >> when things may be usable again (if usable at all). >> Last point: cableswig has been replaced by swig (the unmodified one) and a >> custom program - igenerator.py - to parse the output of gccxml and produce a >> swig interface. Unfortunately, igenerator.py is written in python, so it >> adds a dependency on python to build java or tcl wrappers. >> >>> Is it >>> possible to backport google/WrapITK into ITK ? >> >> There are still a few problems: >> * dependency on python due to igenerator.py. It should be possible to recode >> it in C++, but it's a work with a very low priority on my todo list, so it's >> very unlikely to be done soon. But is it really a problem? >> * there is a bug - I think in swig - which makes some methods not be wrapped >> in tcl. See this test failure for example: >> http://www.cdash.org/CDash/viewTest.php?onlyfailed&buildid=461742 >> >>> >>> Thanks again ! >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Luis Ibanez <luis.iba...@kitware.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Mathieu, >>>> >>>> As we move forward to ITK 4.0, it is likely that WrapITK will >>>> become the official way of wrapping ITK, and at that point >>>> Paul's way of of packaging should probably become the >>>> standard. >>>> >>>> At this point, however, the fault is really on us, as developers of >>>> the toolkit, for not having made our minds about fully supporting >>>> one wrapping system or the other. >>>> >>>> Hopefully, ITK 4.0 will give us the opportunity to clean up >>>> many corners of the toolkit. >>>> >>>> Luis >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------- >>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Paul Novotny <paul.novo...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>>> >>>>>> I still do not understand why you insist on building an outside >>>>>> ubuntu package. >>>>> >>>>> Well, I build them for my own internal use, and just decided to release >>>>> them to the public. Since there are people who use and appreciate it, I >>>>> continue to do it. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ref: >>>>>> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/insighttoolkit >>>>>> >>>>>> What is wrong with the one in ubuntu ? Why not work with the >>>>>> ubuntu-team to get issues fixed ? Why not work with the debian-med >>>>>> team to get it fixed (earlier in the pipeline) ? >>>>> >>>>> There is nothing wrong with the ubuntu/debian version. They appear to be >>>>> using the CSWIG wrapping version. I have used and continue to use >>>>> WrapITK in my own work, and therefor create the packages. So there is >>>>> nothing to 'fix'. >>>>> >>>>>> BTW, I did post a couple of days ago about usage of CSWIG vs WrapITK >>>>>> vs WrapITK. It seems you have chosen the solution #2 (the unmaintained >>>>>> WrapITK shipped with ITK). Could you comment on your choice please ? >>>>> >>>>> As far as why I chose #2, well, I think the post from Gaëtan Lehmann you >>>>> referenced perfectly sums up why (if you don't mind me paraphrasing). >>>>> CSWIG is older and doesn't have as much itk coverage. Wrapitk, great >>>>> python integration, better itk coverage, and is tested and stable. The >>>>> new WrapITK, while faster, cleaner, and with better code coverage is >>>>> unstable, and isn't as well tested. >>>>> >>>>> So, in the end, I don't understand why you don't like it that I release >>>>> these packages? >>>>> >>>>> -Paul >>>>> >>>>> _____________________________________ >>>>> Powered by www.kitware.com >>>>> >>>>> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at >>>>> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html >>>>> >>>>> Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit: >>>>> http://www.kitware.com/products/protraining.html >>>>> >>>>> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at: >>>>> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ >>>>> >>>>> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: >>>>> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-users >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mathieu >> >> -- >> Gaëtan Lehmann >> Biologie du Développement et de la Reproduction >> INRA de Jouy-en-Josas (France) >> tel: +33 1 34 65 29 66 fax: 01 34 65 29 09 >> http://voxel.jouy.inra.fr http://www.itk.org >> http://www.mandriva.org http://www.bepo.fr >> >> > > > > -- > Mathieu > -- Mathieu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
