BTW -- just to keep itk4 packaging going forward: tried to build it on
sid, seems to build (32bit tools on 64bit kernel) but some tests
fail/segfault:
The following tests FAILED:
589 - itkFFTWF_FFTTest (SEGFAULT)
590 - itkFFTWF_RealFFTTest (SEGFAULT)
591 - itkVnlFFTWF_FFTT
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 03:04:52PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> I will do a test build of ITK 4 against gdcm 2.2 and post the results
> for discussion.
I took the source tree for gdcm 2.2.0-1 [1] and built it in a clean
SID chroot.
Then I took the ITK 4.0.0-1 sources [2] into a new clean SID
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 09:07:34PM +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> Steve,
>
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 03:11:18PM +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> >
> >> > Since it's released, I was planning to upload straight to 'unstable'.
> >> > D
Steve,
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 03:11:18PM +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>
>> > Since it's released, I was planning to upload straight to 'unstable'.
>> > Do you think there's a need to stage in 'experimental' first?
>>
>> ITK will be bu
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 01:25:46PM -0500, Dominique Belhachemi wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 4:43 AM, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 08:38:44AM -0500, Dominique Belhachemi wrote:
> >> Steve,
> >>
> >> Thanks for all the work.
> >>
> >> It would be good to have ITK4 in 'expe
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 4:43 AM, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 08:38:44AM -0500, Dominique Belhachemi wrote:
>> Steve,
>>
>> Thanks for all the work.
>>
>> It would be good to have ITK4 in 'experimental'. Having coexisting
>> packages is nice to have but will cause probably too
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 03:11:18PM +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> > Since it's released, I was planning to upload straight to 'unstable'.
> > Do you think there's a need to stage in 'experimental' first?
>
> ITK will be build against gdcm. I would prefer to see gdcm transition
> (#657288) to h
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 08:38:44AM -0500, Dominique Belhachemi wrote:
>> Steve,
>>
>> Thanks for all the work.
>>
>> It would be good to have ITK4 in 'experimental'. Having coexisting
>> packages is nice to have but will cause probably to
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 08:38:44AM -0500, Dominique Belhachemi wrote:
> Steve,
>
> Thanks for all the work.
>
> It would be good to have ITK4 in 'experimental'. Having coexisting
> packages is nice to have but will cause probably too much trouble
> (especially if we build all the language wrapper
Steve,
Thanks for all the work.
It would be good to have ITK4 in 'experimental'. Having coexisting
packages is nice to have but will cause probably too much trouble
(especially if we build all the language wrappers again)
Thanks
-Dominique
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Steve M. Robbins wro
Steve,
This is great !
Thanks for your efforts on packaging ITK.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As some of you know ITK, the Insight Toolkit, version 4.0.0 was
> released last month [1]. This is a major update from the previous
> version 3.20.1, and upstrea
Hi,
As some of you know ITK, the Insight Toolkit, version 4.0.0 was
released last month [1]. This is a major update from the previous
version 3.20.1, and upstream deliberately broke the API in certain
cases [2].
As such, I think it would be a disservice to our users to force an
abrupt transition
12 matches
Mail list logo
