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

Re: Plans for ITK version 4

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?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: