[Ctk-developers] CTK tag

[Sascha Zelzer]

Hi Dominique,

thanks for the P.S. ;-)

I was aware of the content of the libctk0.1 deb package and that is 
actually the main reason for all of my questions. Would it even be 
possible to have multiple libraries with different SO names in the same 
package?

Right now, if for example Slicer depends only on libCTKCore.so.0.1 and 
we create a new debian package and one of the other libraries requires a 
major version bump because of API incompatibility, wouldn't that mean 
that Slicer needs also to be repackaged (if the CTK package is upgraded 
on a system with also Slicer package installed)?

Maybe this is all too theoretical and we are not at a stage yet where 
those things matter...

Thanks,

Sascha

On 12/06/2011 11:43 PM, Dominique Belhachemi wrote:
> Hi Sascha,
>
> Moving each library in a separate package is possible but I wouldn't
> want to do it. It is too much work.
>
> Currently, CTK is using the same major/minor/patch number for each library.
>
> $ ls CTK-build/bin/
> libCTKCore.so      libCTKCore.so.0.1.0       libCTKPluginFramework.so.0.1
> libCTKCore.so.0.1  libCTKPluginFramework.so  libCTKPluginFramework.so.0.1.0
>
>
> The Debian package wouldn't change that. Please have a look at the
> current package in 'experimental':
>     http://packages.debian.org/experimental/amd64/libctk0.1/filelist
>
> Thanks
> -Dominique
>
> P.S. Please not that "Ubuntu" = "Debian unstable + closed source
> graphics driver" :)
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Sascha Zelzer
> <s.zelzer at dkfz-heidelberg.de>  wrote:
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ctk-developers mailing list
> Ctk-developers at commontk.org
> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ctk-developers