Re: Package available (was Re: Micro Manager)
[Maintainer of 3rd party Fiji Debian package in CC
Mark, at the Debian Med list we are currently discussing ImageJ /
Fiji issues which might be interesting for you. The discussion
might be interesting for your from here:
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 07:53:02PM +0100, Johan Henriksson wrote:
> fiji is being maintained in a 3rd party repository:
Hmmm, the page says:
Packages for Debian / Ubuntu
These packages have not been extensively tested, so feedback
to mark-fiji at longair.net would be very much appreciated.
Such 3rd Party repositories are not really what I usually trust in the
> There is only one imagej debian package and it is based on the "original"
> imagej from http://rsbweb.nih.gov/ij/
> and lacks all the extras that fiji includes. in particular, the fiji
> package is very up to date.
I admit that I do not push every imagej version but the Debian package
in unstable is later than the latest Fiji release. I do not know what
this finally means because I realised that ImageJ is quite frequently
released and I do not build every release just because I do not see any
profit for our users (for the moment). I simply assume that not every
release is wanted by our users because they did not yet asked for it.
> Unless someone is willing to upload a new
> imagej package every month
Do you see any profit in doing this? Please be more verbose.
> I don't see why we should duplicate the effort,
> with lower quality.
Well, I had a (very) short look into the Fiji source package and must
admit that from a packaging perspective Fiji could need some
enhancements. I have downloaded the source package and if I would
consider sponsoring it to Debian - what IMHO would be a reasonable thing
to do if I understand Johan's wording correctly - the sponsee would need
to work on several items. However, I could imagine that this is a
doable thing and I wonder what you think about going for such an effort.
>From my perspective the advantage would be pretty clear, because Fiji
would become much more visible to users of Debian and it would be put
under Debian bug tracking control which finally would make it possible
to leave out this "not been extensively tested" warning mentioned above.