Re: dcm2niix
On Wed, 11 Jan 2017, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-01-11 at 11:22 -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> > Hi Ghislain,
> > Thanks for packaging and uploading to dcm2niix!
> You're welcome.
> > It is a pity though that we duplicated the effort somewhat since
> > we maintained dcm2niix within NeuroDebian for a while and didn't upload
> > primarily due to some licensing issues we brought up with upstream and
> > which were later resolved (e.g. of console/ujpeg.*)
> Before packaging a piece of software for Debian, I systematically check
> whether an ITP has already been filed for it on the Debian BTS. There
> was none, so I went for it. The duplication is a pity, but I can't be
> blamed for following the standard procedure for contributing a new
> package to the archive.
;) oh -- it wasn't my intend to blame anyone. Indeed, if to blame we
could blame us (NeuroDebian) since indeed I don't think we ever filed an
ITP for this one
> > It would be nice to converge and co-maintain a single package, may be
> > under some team, e.g our pkg-exppsy (neurodebian) team or debian-med --
> > whatever you would prefer
> I believe the package should be maintained by the Debian Med Team, and
> subsequently backported to Debian Stable and Ubuntu LTS by NeuroDebian,
> if desirable. The primary source for derivative projects should remain
> Debian.
sure
> > our packaging is present on alioth and github:
> > git://git.debian.org/git/pkg-exppsy/dcm2niix.git
> > https://github.com/neurodebian/dcm2niix
> Ack.
> > unfortunately there is a stumbling stone on our end also -- versioning
> > since upstream was inconsistent and I was naive to switch from our
> > custom 0.0.date to their 'date' scheme they took for earlier
> > releases, and now they have switched to 1.0.date ... heh
> Ack.
> You are referring to the following issue [1], right?
> [1] https://github.com/rordenlab/dcm2niix/issues/28
I guess ;)
> > correct resolution, to account for poor us NeuroDebianoids would be to
> > introduce an epoch making it 1:1.0.20161101 so currently present
> > version in neurodebian (20160921+git16-g0339407-1~nd+1) would upgrade to
> > it.
> > What do you think? ;)
> Well, do I really have a choice?
;) now that you are the authority over the Debian's dcm2niix package --
more than ever ;)
> An alternative solution could be to convince Chris to revert to the old
> YYYYMMDD versioning scheme. This way both the Debian and NeuroDebian
> packages can be upgraded without such hack. He is about to make a new
> release so we should act fast.
indeed! I will gently follow up on the
https://github.com/rordenlab/dcm2niix/issues/28
now
--
Yaroslav O. Halchenko
Center for Open Neuroscience http://centerforopenneuroscience.org
Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755
Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834 Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419
WWW: http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik
Reply to: