Hello, Is it possible to move itk to git ?
This will be very helpful.. On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Steve M. Robbins <[email protected]> wrote: > On December 22, 2015 01:18:46 PM Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > > > > #724711 insighttoolkit4: Drops architecture support > > > - upstream, quite a few tests fail on e.g. powerpc and armhf > > > > This is relevant for OTB, because ITK4 limits the architectures to amd64 > > & i386. It should be available on all the modern release architectures > > at least (specifically arm*). s390x and powerpc should also be more than > > powerful enough for insighttoolkit4, but I suspect insighttoolkit4 > > doesn't support big endian architectures. > > Upstream ITK does aim to support big-endian; that's not the issue. > > > > When upstream developers are unwilling or unstable to fix architecture > > specific test failures, I choose to ignore the test failures instead of > > excluding the architecture entirely. > > I think we need to take the view that a test failure *IS* a build failure. > > If you provide a package that only passes the weak test of syntactical > correctness (i.e. it builds) but may fail to produce a correct result > (i.e. it > fails a test): that is dangerously misleading. I think Debian should > adhere > to a higher standard that the resulting package is correct (to the best of > our > knowledge). > > > In the specific case of ITK, it comes down to lack of people power. I > spent > literally years trying to get it to build correctly on all architectures at > the same time long enough to transition to testing. I failed. Upstream > had > no visibility on non-Intel architectures (recently it changed with > interest in > the Rasberry Pi), so I tried recruiting people to help out troubleshooting > the issues or to run nightly dashboard builds on non-Intel architectures. > I > got, I think, two builds running for a bit; but that effort fizzled too. > > Ultimately, I took the hard decision that (a) I couldn't get it building > everywhere by myself and (b) having ITK v4 in Debian for the mainstream > architectures is better than not having ITK v4 in Debian at all. I'm not > happy with being forced to make that decision. But I don't think it was > the > wrong one. In all the time since then I've had exactly one person complain > that his usage of ITK (on Sparc) was not supported in Debian. All the > other > complaints about the decision were on philosophical grounds ("Debian should > release everywhere"). I think the philosophy is a good goal, but reality > got > in the way this time. > > I don't know what OTB is. If arm is important to you, then I second Gert's > suggestion that folks volunteer their arm machines for the ITK dashboard > and > help upstream get arm in shape. As I mentioned, there is interest in the > RasPi upstream so you may get traction here. I have set up ITK nightly > builds > for the x86 and amd64 architectures, and would be happy to assist anyone > who > wants to do the same. > > The dashboard is the first step, and largely automatic once set up. The > bigger > issue is that folks are needed to address the issues that crop up. That > means > triaging and providing patches, etc. That is a big time commitment, but a > necessary one, IMHO, before we enlarge the set of architectures for ITK. > > Best, > -Steve > -- Regards, Rashad
