[Ctk-developers] CTK tag

[Sascha Zelzer]

Hi Dominique,

Thanks a lot for your efforts!

I am not experienced with Debian packages but I wonder what the actual 
set of libraries for such a CTK package would be. And how do the library 
versions relate to the package version? Shouldn't we package each 
library separately, or are those questions irrelevant for Debian unstable?

I am also not sure if bumping the minor version is enough, especially if 
we look at the libraries as a whole. We had discussions about versioning 
of our libraries and having a global major/minor/patch set for all CTK 
versions is certainly not adequate. But maybe people do not care that 
much regarding Debian unstable...

Sorry for the brain dump,

Sascha

On 12/06/2011 05:05 PM, Dominique Belhachemi wrote:
> Hi Marco,
>
> Yes, I would use the tagged version for Debian. I just need something
> what can be considered as "stable enough".
>
> CTK has already been accepted in 'experimental' back in July
> (http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/ctk/news/20110717T133234Z.html). So
> the upload to 'unstable' would take only a couple of minutes.
>
> Don't worry about MITK, we can always update the package in 'unstable'.
>
> Additionally to creating the tag I would like to see a bump in the soname.
> Updating the MINOR value would be the correct thing to do because I am
> sure that the ABI/API changed a lot.
> -set(CTK_MINOR_VERSION 1)
> +set(CTK_MINOR_VERSION 2)
>
> But if this is not possible, updating the PATCH value would help as well.
> -set(CTK_PATCH_VERSION 0)
> +set(CTK_PATCH_VERSION 1)
>
> Thanks
> -Dominique
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Marco Nolden
> <m.nolden at dkfz-heidelberg.de>  wrote:
>> Hi Dominique,
>>
>> tagging is a really good idea, we already started discussions about this at
>> the recent hackfest.
>>
>> Would you use this tag as a basis for the Debian packaging? As far as I know
>> the Debian packaging procedure it will take some time till this really gets
>> accepted in "unstable". What is the timeframe that you expect? Would you
>> update CTK to a more recent version before entering "unstable"? I'm asking
>> because we're also planning a debian package for MITK and we would at least
>> need some fixes from the most recent version of CTK.
>> Another option would be to apply some fixes on the Slicer 4 version and
>> create a dedicated ctk-for-debian release branch on Github and discuss the
>> fixes to put in there.
>>
>> Best
>> Marco
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/06/2011 03:09 AM, Dominique Belhachemi wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I was wondering whether it is possible to create a tag for CTK.
>>>
>>> More and more people are using ctk and it would be good to have
>>> something like a pre-release. What do you thing about tagging the ctk
>>> version Slicer 4 is using?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -Dominique
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ctk-developers mailing list
>>> Ctk-developers at commontk.org
>>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Dipl.-Inform. Med. Marco Nolden
>> Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum       (German Cancer Research Center)
>> Div. Medical&  Biological Informatics          Tel: (+49) 6221-42 2325
>> Im Neuenheimer Feld 280                        Fax: (+49) 6221-42 2345
>> D-69120 Heidelberg                             eMail: M.Nolden at dkfz.de
> _______________________________________________
> Ctk-developers mailing list
> Ctk-developers at commontk.org
> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers