[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Packaging of FSL for Debian



On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Michael Hanke wrote:

Legend
* - included in the tarball
# - official debian package
+ - inofficial package

Thanks for your effort.

Build-Depends:

* - CEPHES library             (never heard of)
# - FFTW library
#* - GD library
#* - GDC library            (is probably libgdchart)
# - GSL library
#* - PNG library
* - PROB library        (seems to be some module from CEPHES lib)
* - CPROB library        (seems to be some module from CEPHES lib)
* - NEWMAT library     C++ matrix library (Ref:
'http://webnz.com/robert' is offline)
* - NEWRAN library     C++ randum number generator library (Ref:
'http://webnz.com/robert' is offline)
#* - ZLIB library
# - FFTW3 library
# - BOOST library
# - QT3 library
# - QWT library
# - tcl and tk (docs say version 8.4.7.0 )
# - tix  (docs say version 8.1.4 )

IMHO all the '#' marked ones do definitely belong to an upstream tarball.
If I were you I would start telling the authors about this fact.  Perhaps
the regard at least this.

I'm a little bit unsure about the '*' marked ones.  I would think about
packaging the ones with external URLs (in case they become online
again).  Discussing the issue with the authors might be a good idea
anyway.  A hint to the Debian-Med project might be also interesting
for them.  If you go on for this discussion it might be a good idea
to CC the list.

Depends:
# - gnuplot (included in binary form)
# - imagemagick (included in binary form)

Sounds stupid to me.

Suggests:
+ - afni
NO PACKAGE - freesurfer (you can get the source code as free download,
but you need a licence-key to run the prog - which is itself free for
non-commercial use)

Well, if it is a suggests I would ignore it for the moment and sort this
out once FSL is ready.  But it is a little bit hard to decide for me as
a more or less outsider.

As you can see, AFNI is not really needed for FSL. But it is
nevertheless a nice package to have. I have invited the maintainer of
the inofficial package to join this discussion.

This is a good idea in any case and perhaps somebody cares for this
independently.

Kind regards

          Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de



Reply to: