Steve, On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Steve M. Robbins <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 03:11:18PM +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > >> > Since it's released, I was planning to upload straight to 'unstable'. >> > Do you think there's a need to stage in 'experimental' first? >> >> ITK will be build against gdcm. I would prefer to see gdcm transition >> (#657288) to have ended (ie. gdcm 2.2.x into unstable) first. > > I'm not sure what your concern is; can you elaborate?
Just trying to avoir another set of #(655783 655784 655785 655786 655787 655788) because ITK will be build using gdcm 2.0 > ITK 4 builds with the gdcm in unstable so if it builds OK with the new > gdcm, I don't see it will hinder the latter's transition. The fact that ITK builds against 2.0 does not mean it builds fine with 2.2 from experimental. I would really like to have feedback on that combination just as fast as you for ITK > Moreover, I expect ITK 4 to be undergoing repeated source uploads to > get it building everywhere (3.20.0 got up to rev -17) so it's likely > that gdcm 2.2 gets into 'testing' before ITK 4 does for this reason > alone. As said above, during this time, people will get another set of RC bugs identical to #655783 and al. Can you just do at least one upload to experimental first ? Thanks, -- Mathieu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CA+7wUsz-W8=pyfv3bhm2tubp_ecewksaqa-6ogqvbhrfab0...@mail.gmail.com
