Hello Andreas & Debian Med, On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 11:29:41AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > So the situation what our real targt should be is at best "unclear". > Could anybody take some time to clarify the situation with upstream? The situation of minc lagging behind upstream is my fault. I have known for a year or so of the new upstream minc 1.5.1. It's been on my TODO list, as has the issue of deciding whether to (a) switch to MINC 2.x or (b) package both. Since leaving the MNI four years ago, I haven't been actively using MINC. I'm mainly packaging it out of nostalgia for my alma mater :-) But through monitoring the mailing lists, I get the impression that MINC 2 is being used actively now by most people. So I think it's reasonable to switch the Debian package to MINC 2, too. > In this bug report I also suggested team maintainance of minc. That's a fantastic idea. The suggestion was to use the Debian-Med SVN. I currently use CVS for minc packaging. Is CVS a possiblity or shall I convert to SVN? Cheers, -Steve
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature