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

Bug#1024343: insighttoolkit4: releasability with bookworm?



Control: tags -1 - moreinfo

Hi Sebastian,

Sorry, I might have triggered the upload a couple of minutes too
early.  Anyway, thanks for reaching out!

Sebastian Ramacher, on 2022-11-23:
> On 2022-11-17 21:44:22 +0100, Étienne Mollier wrote:
> > However, there are still several reverse dependencies which have
> > not made the jump to itk-5.y yet, and are currently out of
> > testing due to depending on packages which are not part of the
> > testing distribution anymore.  Also, I noticed in the RC bug[1]
> > affecting it that there has been quite some effort from
> > different parties to try to help bringing it back to testing,
> > but to no avail.  Finally, I had been hoping to keep the library
> > in a somewhat working condition for downstream users to be able
> > to migrate somewhat smoothly from itk-4.y to itk-5.y in
> > bookworm; the latter was not made available in bullseye alas.
> 
> Which of the reverse dependencies do you want to see in bookworm? From
> the two of the three I looked at, they have their own RC bugs and look
> mostly unmaintained. ants, for example, has a RC bug open from 2017.

I've been mostly concerned by the third one, otb[1], which seems
still under active maintenance even though it is held by missing
ITK4 dependencies.

[1]: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/otb

itksnap 4.0.0 is due to support vtk9 and itk5, but looks still
under beta release, so didn't make it to the packaging step yet.
Looking at reverse build dependencies, facet-analyser looks to
have made the move to itk5 recently and shouldn't be in trouble.

Things otherwise moved on since last time I checked.
Maybe I worry too much.

Have a nice day,  :)
-- 
  .''`.  Étienne Mollier <emollier@debian.org>
 : :' :  gpg: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c  8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da
 `. `'   sent from /dev/pts/2, please excuse my verbosity
   `-    on air: Camel - Rainbow's End

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: