On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 01:25:46PM -0500, Dominique Belhachemi wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 4:43 AM, Steve M. Robbins <steve@sumost.ca> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 08:38:44AM -0500, Dominique Belhachemi wrote: > >> Steve, > >> > >> Thanks for all the work. > >> > >> It would be good to have ITK4 in 'experimental'. Having coexisting > >> packages is nice to have but will cause probably too much trouble > >> (especially if we build all the language wrappers again) > > > > Since it's released, I was planning to upload straight to 'unstable'. > > Do you think there's a need to stage in 'experimental' first? > > > I think it is better to have ITK4 in experimental for one or two > weeks. This is just to be on the safe side, there are sometimes > unexpected problems with including cmake configuration files. I fully expect a number of problems with configuration. However, I see no problem with working this out in unstable rather than experimental. The new packages do not replace any existing ones and nothing will build-depend on the new packages at first. Can you explain what issue you see with working this out in unstable? Thanks, -Steve
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature