Re: ITK Python Bindings
I presume that means I can't link the wrappers against the packaged
libraries (please correct me if I'm wrong), so I suppose I'll compile
the whole thing from source for now.
If you're able to incorporate the wrappers into a package, I'd
certainly appreciate that. As to which one, it seems that the WrapITK
bindings haven't been maintained in the past couple years (I believe
the last recorded change was in late 2006 - around ITK version
2.8.[1]). I seem to recall there being some discussion of rolling some
of the WrapITK changes into mainline ITK for v.3, although I can't
seem to find that conversation at the moment (which may mean I'm
making it up). In any case, it seems to me that using the cswig
version would be advisable, despite the nicer interface offered by
WrapITK.
Thanks for your help,
-Gabriel
[1]:http://voxel.jouy.inra.fr/darcs/contrib-itk/WrapITK/
On Feb 7, 2008 9:39 PM, Steve M. Robbins <steve@sumost.ca> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Unfortunately, the Debian ITK libraries are not yet build with python
> wrapping enabled. That's on my list of things to do. I had been
> dithering as to whether to use cswig or to use the new wrapitk method.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 08:24:27PM -0500, Gabriel Grant wrote:
> > Does anyone know where I can find a way to get ITK python bindings to
> > work with the ITK deb packages?
> >
> > According to http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_Configuring_and_Building, the
> > deb packages are built with python support,
>
> Yeah, I see how you could get that impression. That page actually
> describes a recommended configuration for a debian system, not the
> "official" debian packages of ITK.
>
>
> Cheers,
> -Steve
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFHq8Dw0i2bPSHbMcURAimqAKCOiMjBVa48ND8zPwqjyIBtAmc/9QCgj4LG
> dkOAPD4i7UqVCFq5O/KcUng=
> =RSUE
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
Reply to: