Re: dcm2niix
On Wed, 2017-01-11 at 13:19 -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> 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
See my follow-up on https://github.com/rordenlab/dcm2niix/issues/66
Hopefully, we can sort this out.
Cheers,
Ghis
Reply to: