On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 10:01:33AM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Steve M. Robbins <steve@sumost.ca> wrote: > > Hello Debian-Med folks, > > > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 10:58:29AM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > >> This is mostly a bug fix release, anyone doing RLE compression / J2K > >> compression is suggested to upgrade to this version as it fixes quite > >> a few issues. > > > > I got thinking that it would be nice to have an up-to-date GDCM in > > Debian for ITK to link with. So I had a look at the sources in > > the debian-med SVN tree. > > > > After adding a few missing build-deps, I got 2.0.6 to build. Then I > > tweaked the debian/* files to build with 2.0.9. The C++ library > > packages look in reasonable shape. I'm not so sure about the other > > packages, however. > > > > In the python packages, for example, the sources are configured and > > built with both python 2.4 and 2.5, but only one of these seems to > > make it into the final package. I'll have a hack at these when I > > get some free time, but I'd really love it if someone else could > > fix it up for me. > > I am not sure I understand this one. > > I've just made a patch at the debian files: > > debian-med/trunk/packages/gdcm/trunk/debian > $ svn ci -m"BUG: Was missing some * character" > Password: > Sending debian/python-gdcm.install > Sending debian/python-vtkgdcm.install > Transmitting file data .. > Committed revision 2551. > > > Or are you saying that if someone has both python 2.4 and python 2.5 > then at inspection time, cmake is picking the wrong version of python > ? This is easy to tell cmake which python to use. Just let me know if > this is what you mean. Thanks. If you have both 2.4 and 2.5 installed, then gdcm gets configured and built twice: once in debian/build-python2.4 and once in debian/build-python2.5. If this is intended, I'd expect all the build products to be packaged. It doesn't appear to be the case, however. > > It's a bit unusual to have the version number embedded in tool names > > (e.g. gdcmconv-2.0). > > My inclination is to drop the versioned names. > > Mathieu: do you have any objection to this? > > sure. How do you want the patch, I am not familiar with quilt and co. You can send me a simple patch and I'll put it into quilt form. -Steve
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature