Re: ITK debian packages
- To: "Steve M. Robbins" <steven.robbins@videotron.ca>
- Cc: Debian Med Project List <debian-med@lists.debian.org>
- Subject: Re: ITK debian packages
- From: Gavin Baker <gavinb@antonym.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 20:52:41 +1100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 1141725161.8901.24.camel@liberator>
- In-reply-to: <20060226160302.GI7362@nyongwa.montreal.qc.ca>
- References: <20060108185925.GB815@nyongwa.montreal.qc.ca> <1137333813.16651.25.camel@liberator> <20060120193333.GK28990@nyongwa.montreal.qc.ca> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0601202243230.11798@wr-linux02> <20060120225105.GM28990@nyongwa.montreal.qc.ca> <20060122172316.GO28990@nyongwa.montreal.qc.ca> <1138747351.16528.12.camel@liberator> <43DFEED8.3080907@kitware.com> <20060226033923.GG7362@nyongwa.montreal.qc.ca> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0602261133130.29102@wr-linux02> <20060226160302.GI7362@nyongwa.montreal.qc.ca>
Hello,
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 11:03 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> I would prefer to use what I believe is a more common Debian
> convention, where the version used is "${UPSTREAM}+cvs${DATE}. With
> this convention, gccxml is version 0.7.0+cvs20060226 and cableswig is
> version 0.1.0+cvs20060226.
The gccxml version looks fine, but note that the latest cableswig
release is v2.4 (it is released in sync with ITK), which is what I have
been using in my packages.
http://www.itk.org/HTML/Download.htm
I'm not sure where the 0.1.0+cvs20060226 came from, but I think it
should really be 2.4.0+cvs20060226.
Thanks - catching up now...
:: Gavin
Reply to: