On Monday, November 16, 2020 5:49:09 A.M. CST Gert Wollny wrote: > > My thought is to upload to experimental first. I don't see any > > "experimental" branch in salsa, but maybe I can just create one? Or > > would it be better to make an itk5 branch? > > I'd suggest to use a new project altogether. Considering how big ITK is > it is probably not of much help to keep the whole history of itk4 also > in this new version. Maybe it would make sense to do a shallow clone of > the insighttoolkit4 repo to have a starting point. For avoidance of doubt: the source package of ITK is currently insighttoolkit4 and the new one will be insighttoolkit5. This convention started at the v3-- >v4 transition to allow overlapping major versions in Debian for a time. What I did so far is actually create 'itk5' and itk5-upstream' branches in my local git repo. I had planned to keep the parallel branches as long as ITK v4 remains in Debian, and them merge them into master/upstream. I hadn't considered a new repo altogether. Could make sense. > There may also be packages that need itk4 for the time being, at least > with vtk6 there are such cases, although they relate to the switch from > OpenGL 2.1 to 3.2, i.e. compat to core. Yes, so I have no plan to remove ITK 4 at the moment. > > Also, I recall that someone (Gert, I believe) once proposed dropping > > the python packages for ITK 5. > > Yes I did, my reasons would be that it makes the build overly long and > large, and we do not know what people actually need. My guess is that > people who do serious work with python itk probably compile it > themselves anyway. Right, and for Andreas T: the issue with "provide all interfaces" is that there is a *very* fine-grained set of configuration options -- e.g. do you want images with int components? float? double? 2D? 3D? 4D? etc etc. In principle, it would be nice to have everything, but it comes at a massive cost in build time and space; see https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi? bug=759794 Not to mention developer effort to troubleshoot all of the above. > > So my thought is to drop the python package. > > Agreed. > > Best, > Gert Thanks, Gert, for all the work over the years! -Steve
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.