Re: debian imagej
- To: Johan Henriksson <johan.henriksson@ki.se>
- Cc: Johan Henriksson <mahogny@maia.areta.org>, paolo.ariano@unito.it, Debian Med Project List <debian-med@lists.debian.org>
- Subject: Re: debian imagej
- From: Andreas Tille <tillea@rki.de>
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:06:22 +0200 (CEST)
- Message-id: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0904301603280.29827@wr-linux02>
- In-reply-to: <1241099518.1651.1.camel@naos>
- References: <dd8886300904290122g68cf42e1uc593a9cd9fe45d1d@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.0904291254530.2642@wr-linux02> <alpine.DEB.2.00.0904301443440.29827@wr-linux02> <1241099518.1651.1.camel@naos>
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Johan Henriksson wrote:
Hmmm, I noticed there is a problem remaining which I even posted here
but did not got any response[1]. So if there might be anybody willing
to contact upstream about this problem (which was previousely solved by
them for very similar issues but probably the new versions have a
regression) we could go on upgrading imagej for Debian.
a related issue is that we now have two imagej debian packages (see:
Fiji).
$ apt-cache search fiji
Sorry, I can not get what package you mean?
but Fiji is a lot more actively maintained so unless someone
decides to pick up our imagej package for real it might do more damage
than use.
Could you please be more verbose which package you mean and give a
shourt comparison between fiji and imagej? We also do have to
differentiate between a upstream source maintenance - which seems
quite active for imagej guessing from their release frequency -
and the Debian maintenance which is a bit lame for the moment.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: