Bug#740705: Please incorportate ubuntu patches
Il Sabato 8 Marzo 2014 23:19, Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca ha scritto: On March 6, 2014 07:29:31 AM Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: Ok, can you then please sponsor a package for me? I can fix this bug, also #740628 and push on mentors. I can do that. Please send a follow-up to the bug when your work is ready. I (or another debian-med team member) will act on it. Here you are :) https://mentors.debian.net/package/insighttoolkit I kept changes as minimal as possible Is there some reason you can't use ITK v4? The main reason is: [...limited architectures...] many packages that have been successfully built with the v3 won't build anymore against v4, so the rationale is use 4 on amd64 and i386, switch to v3 for other archs. OK. But you do understand that in future this will no longer be an option because, at some point, v3 will be removed from the archive in favour of v4 that is now in Testing. Ack. I don't know if you have an hint for building them against v4 (removing the package from ftpmaster will let the package reach testing I know) If you want to build a package that requires ITK, at present you have two options: (a) build only for the two ITK-supported architectures, or (b) stay with v3. There's a discussion going on now in debian-med regarding a third option: restoring architectures to v4. That will be nice for the long term indeed, evenmore because v3 has some problems fixed in v4 I heard from nifti2dicom maintainer, in the meanwhile I think the fallback is the easiest way to let the packagenifti2dicom reach testing Regards, -Steve Best regards, Gianfranco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#740705: Please incorportate ubuntu patches
On March 6, 2014 07:29:31 AM Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: Ok, can you then please sponsor a package for me? I can fix this bug, also #740628 and push on mentors. I can do that. Please send a follow-up to the bug when your work is ready. I (or another debian-med team member) will act on it. Is there some reason you can't use ITK v4? The main reason is: [...limited architectures...] many packages that have been successfully built with the v3 won't build anymore against v4, so the rationale is use 4 on amd64 and i386, switch to v3 for other archs. OK. But you do understand that in future this will no longer be an option because, at some point, v3 will be removed from the archive in favour of v4 that is now in Testing. I don't know if you have an hint for building them against v4 (removing the package from ftpmaster will let the package reach testing I know) If you want to build a package that requires ITK, at present you have two options: (a) build only for the two ITK-supported architectures, or (b) stay with v3. There's a discussion going on now in debian-med regarding a third option: restoring architectures to v4. Regards, -Steve signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#740705: Please incorportate ubuntu patches
On March 4, 2014 08:42:43 AM Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: Package: insighttoolkit Version: 3.20.1+git20120521-4 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch Dear Maintainer, The ubuntu insidhttoolkit package has some patches that would be nice to have included in (maybe) the next upload, or at least discussed here. Well, given that ITK 3.20 is well over 3 years old, I don't anticipate spending much of my time on it. But the package is under group maintenance and maybe one of the other maintainers will step up. Is there some reason you can't use ITK v4? -Steve signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#740705: Please incorportate ubuntu patches
Il Giovedì 6 Marzo 2014 5:59, Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca ha scritto: On March 4, 2014 08:42:43 AM Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: Package: insighttoolkit Version: 3.20.1+git20120521-4 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch Dear Maintainer, The ubuntu insidhttoolkit package has some patches that would be nice to have included in (maybe) the next upload, or at least discussed here. Well, given that ITK 3.20 is well over 3 years old, I don't anticipate spending much of my time on it. But the package is under group maintenance and maybe one of the other maintainers will step up. Hi Steve!, Ok, can you then please sponsor a package for me? I can fix this bug, also #740628 and push on mentors. Is there some reason you can't use ITK v4? The main reason is: armel is not present in the architecture list set by the maintainer armhf is not present in the architecture list set by the maintainer hurd-i386 is not present in the architecture list set by the maintainer kfreebsd-amd64 is not present in the architecture list set by the maintainer kfreebsd-i386 is not present in the architecture list set by the maintainer mips is not present in the architecture list set by the maintainer mipsel is not present in the architecture list set by the maintainer powerpc is not present in the architecture list set by the maintainer s390x is not present in the architecture list set by the maintainer sparc is not present in the architecture list set by the maintainer many packages that have been successfully built with the v3 won't build anymore against v4, so the rationale is use 4 on amd64 and i386, switch to v3 for other archs. I don't know if you have an hint for building them against v4 (removing the package from ftpmaster will let the package reach testing I know) Thanks! Gianfranco -Steve -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#740705: Please incorportate ubuntu patches
Package: insighttoolkit
Version: 3.20.1+git20120521-4
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Dear Maintainer,
The ubuntu insidhttoolkit package has some patches that would be nice to have
included in (maybe) the next upload, or at least discussed here.
Since the tiff-4/5 patch has been dropped in debian, in favor of the embedded
copy I suggest to include/drop the other delta from ubuntu.
The patch is snan-sanity.patch
and this is the content:
Index: insighttoolkit-3.20.1+git20120521/Utilities/NrrdIO/sane.c
=== ---
insighttoolkit-3.20.1+git20120521.orig/Utilities/NrrdIO/sane.c 2012-09-11
17:25:06.0 + +++
insighttoolkit-3.20.1+git20120521/Utilities/NrrdIO/sane.c 2012-09-11
17:39:19.196189762 + @@ -115,7 +115,11 @@ ( defined(__GNUC__) (__GNUC__
4 || (__GNUC__ == 4 __GNUC_MINOR__ = 7 ))) /* don't compare airFP_SNAN
*/ #else - airFP_SNAN == airFPClass_f(AIR_SNAN) + /* we
don't bother checking for +airFP_SNAN == airFPClass_f(AIR_SNAN)
because +the signal-ness of the NaN is not preserved in +
float conversion */ + /* airFP_SNAN == airFPClass_f(AIR_SNAN) */
#endif airFP_QNAN == airFPClass_d(AIR_NAN) airFP_QNAN ==
airFPClass_d(AIR_QNAN) )) {
and the rationale for including it (quoting the ubuntu changelog)
insighttoolkit (3.20.1+git20120521-1ubuntu3) quantal; urgency=low *
debian/patches/snan-sanity.patch: - In sanity checks done by the nrrd utility
code, don't bother testing signal NaN clases, because GCC does not guarantee to
preserve signal-ness across float conversions. This was contributing to a FTBFS
for plastimatch. -- Michael Terry mte...@ubuntu.com Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:08:00
-0400
thanks for reading,
Gianfranco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
