[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Please lets coordinate itk4/itk5 issues (Was: Bug#984063)

On Monday, November 8, 2021 1:09:43 A.M. CST Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
> this mail from Jose
> Am Sat, Nov 06, 2021 at 01:33:29AM +0100 schrieb Jose Luis Rivero:
> > Hello! Gazebo maintainer here, affected by this RC bug. Looking into
> > upstream repository there is a potential commit that can be used to patch
> > this problem until new versions land in Debian:
> > 
> > https://github.com/InsightSoftwareConsortium/ITK/commit/840f22feb351739359
> > a8fdb55304124823a3a8c9

Are you saying this will allow ITKv4 to be built with current gcc?  At 
present, ITK is about to be removed from testing tomorrow because it won't 

> caused me having a look into the Git repository of insighttoolkit4[1].
> It is missing the NMU 4.13.3withdata-dfsg1-4.1 by Andreas Beckmann and
> there are now the first commits done by Steve for insighttoolkit5
> version 5.2.1 which was ITPed by Ghislain[2].

Yep, I've already uploaded ITK 5 to Debian.

> I think we need to discuss whether
>   1. We want to simply replace insighttoolkit4 (which makes the
>      usage of the existing repository[1] sensible - but please inject
>      the NMU changes at least in d/changelog

Yes.  This is what I've communicated already 2-3 times on the list -- going 
back a year -- and in Ghislain's ITP.


>   2. We should start ITK5 in a new repository and maintain both
>      versions at least for some time in parallel until all packages
>      that currently use ITK4 are migrated.

If we can get ITK4 to build with current compilers, my suggestion would be to 
make a v4 branch in the current repository.  On the other hand, it's kind of 
11th hour here.  I'm much more focused on replacing v4 with v5 -- which, to be 
fair is already more than two years old.  ITK v4 is no longer supported 
> In any case people who are interested in ITK should coordinate their
> work and talk to each other which I'd like to kindly invite you to
> do here on the Debian Med mailing list (any other channel is fine for
> sure).

Yes, I've always used debian-med for communications.  Additional hands are 
always welcomed.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: