On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Karsten Hilbert <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:40:02PM +0100, Karsten Hilbert wrote: >> >> Is there any news regarding this bug ? >> >> >> >> It is rather serious: Because of this bug Ginkgo CADx >> >> is rather useless for serious clinical care on Debian. >> > >> > I admit I feel helpless about this issue. However, if you think that >> > this issue is serious than you should tag the bug that way to make more >> > people aware of it. The consequence would be that ginkgocadx will not >> > be released with Jessie if it will not be fixed. I keep upstream in CC >> > (Carlos, feel free to read the whole story here [1]). >> >> Here is the only technical information in this bug report: >> >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=753809#15 >> >> [...] >> > We found many issues in GDCM 2.x which is provided with debian bundled ITK >> > version. >> [...] >> AFAIR ITK/GDCM upstream has been fairly reluctant to apply patches. >> [...] >> >> What exactly do you expect from me ? Please stop CCing me on FUDs. >> >> I've happily applied patch for better integration of current ITK and >> GDCM see recent changelog, so stop saying things like "fairly >> reluctant", or at least include the context. >> >> As for the so-called "many issues in GDCM 2.x", please include actual >> details to reproduce them. > > Mathieu, what do you expect me to do other than the following ? > > 1) supply a detailed explanation of how to reproduce the problem > > I did. > Did you try to reproduce the problem ?
Let's summarize it (as I see it). You found a bug in A (ginkgocadx), which uses B (ITK) which in turns uses C (GDCM). Upstream for A says: "this is not our fault it is somewhere in B or C". I believe somewhere in between A or B there is a missing link to report *exactly* what is wrong with C. You've gently reported a bug report for A, they confirmed this is a bug, and even confirmed the bug is somewhere in B or C. I am not going to re-do the above work, because I've never used A, and upstream for A was very precise in saying that the bug was in B or C. In summary yes I expect a bug report for C to be somewhat minimalist, but don't ask me to use A -> B -> C to dig a bug somewhere in A. The chain as I see it is that either someone from A or B is capable of reporting a reduced test case for C. -M -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
