On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 09:33:06PM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
So I just noticed that my nightly build of ITK 4 has been
failing ever since Debian switched to gcc 4.7. The
previous night was successful. Might be worth switching
to gcc-4.6 for the build.
Since gcc 4.7's optimizer is
So I just noticed that my nightly build of ITK 4 has been
failing ever since Debian switched to gcc 4.7 [1]. The
previous night was successful [2]. Might be worth switching
to gcc-4.6 for the build.
[1] http://open.cdash.org/buildSummary.php?buildid=2260572
[2]
On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 21:33 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 02:17:52PM -0400, Paul Novotny wrote:
On Sun, 2012-06-03 at 00:11 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 06:38:16PM -0400, Paul Novotny wrote:
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 16:06 -0500, Steve M.
On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 02:17:52PM -0400, Paul Novotny wrote:
On Sun, 2012-06-03 at 00:11 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 06:38:16PM -0400, Paul Novotny wrote:
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 16:06 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
First order of business is to go through the
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca wrote:
Well, as things stand now, ITK 4 no longer builds on
AMD64, either, so I was unable to upload.
Is there a way I could see online the errors in AMD64 ?
I don't have an AMD64 machine, but might be able to help.
On Sun, 2012-06-03 at 00:11 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 06:38:16PM -0400, Paul Novotny wrote:
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 16:06 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
First order of business is to go through the buildd logs and get a
list of the issues. There is only one
What is the status of ITK version 4? I noticed that Wheezy is going to
freeze soon, and was wondering what I could do to help get this into
testing. Or is it too late?
Whether it gets into Wheezy or not, I have some time to work on this.
Anyone know what the current issues are?
-Paul
--
To
Hello,
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 02:27:00PM -0400, Paul Novotny wrote:
What is the status of ITK version 4? I noticed that Wheezy is going to
freeze soon, and was wondering what I could do to help get this into
testing.
Thank you! More hands for ITK is indeed welcome. Between ITK, Boost,
and
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 16:06 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
First order of business is to go through the buildd logs and get a
list of the issues. There is only one issue currently filed
(#670609), a trivial missing Conflicts.
Can you push the latest changes to the build servers? I noticed
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 06:38:16PM -0400, Paul Novotny wrote:
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 16:06 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
First order of business is to go through the buildd logs and get a
list of the issues. There is only one issue currently filed
(#670609), a trivial missing Conflicts.
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 06:38:16PM -0400, Paul Novotny wrote:
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 16:06 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
First order of business is to go through the buildd logs and get a
list of the issues. There is only one issue currently filed
(#670609), a trivial missing Conflicts.
I'm quoting the entire old thread below since it's been a while, but I
have a solution now unless the release team rejects it.
Yaroslav Halchenko deb...@onerussian.com wrote:
there seems to be a new build-depends complication:
libgeotiff-dev depends on libtiff5-dev,
libtiff5-dev
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:48:19AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
I'm quoting the entire old thread below since it's been a while, but I
have a solution now unless the release team rejects it.
Yaroslav Halchenko deb...@onerussian.com wrote:
there seems to be a new build-depends
Steve, Paul,
Thanks for tracking this problem.
I remember having problems when making this TIFF
configuration in ITK.
Should we apply your patch upstream as well ?
Thanks
Luis
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca
Luis,
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Luis Ibanez luis.iba...@kitware.com wrote:
I remember having problems when making this TIFF
configuration in ITK.
Should we apply your patch upstream as well ?
Upstream is using libtool by default which will generate #define FOO 1
or /* undef FOO */ so
Mathieu,
Thanks for the clarification.
I'll take a look at your file:
tif_config.h.cmake.in
since I'm not sure that we got it right in ITK
when configuring the latest update of TIFF...
We may take advantage of copying from
your configuration above.
Thanks
Hi all,
I have verified the failures linking against the system version of
FFTW on an i386 sid virtual machine, but the failures do not occur
when building FFTW 3.2.2 or 3.3 as a CMake ExternalProject.
Matt
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Yaroslav Halchenko y...@debian.org wrote:
meanwhile I
and for me tests are still running -- I have built in a clean sid +
fftw3 (3.3.1-4) from experimental i386
note: build-depends would need to be adjusted to depend on new
libfftw3-mt-dev (which depends on libfftw3-dev) if fftw3 would get into
sid in such a packaging setup
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012,
FWIW -- unfortunately still fails with systemwide fftw3 3.3.1-4
The following tests FAILED:
608 - itkFFTWF_FFTTest (SEGFAULT)
609 - itkFFTWF_RealFFTTest (SEGFAULT)
610 - itkVnlFFTWF_FFTTest (SEGFAULT)
614 - itkVnlFFTWD_FFTTest (SEGFAULT)
615 -
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 04:46:42PM -0400, Paul Novotny wrote:
On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 13:09 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Other architectures show a regression in that now the libraries don't
even build whereas before they did build. Still others claim a
dependency installability problem
Hi,
To recap: I can build ITK 4.1.0 and run the test suite on
Debian/unstable amd64 machine. However, the 32-bit i86
fails on seven FFT tests.
Yaroslav provided some output from a Debug run:
PlanRigor: FFTW_EXHAUSTIVE (8)
ITKFFTTestDriver:
meanwhile I will blindly try to build/test it against fftw3 in
experimental -- who knows, may be it is their bug ;)
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
I just ran ITKFFTTestDriver itkFFTWF_FFTTest through valgrind with
the following results. Any ideas of what to look at next are
On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 00:50 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 04:46:42PM -0400, Paul Novotny wrote:
On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 13:09 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Other architectures show a regression in that now the libraries don't
even build whereas before they did
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 09:40:28AM -0400, Paul Novotny wrote:
SO, in the end, I learned more than I wanted. And the solution is
probably to include my patch, changing #if to #ifdef.
I agree. It never occurred to me that someone (#cmakedefine) would
write #define WORDS_BIGENDIAN rather than
Yaroslav Halchenko deb...@onerussian.com wrote:
there seems to be a new build-depends complication:
libgeotiff-dev depends on libtiff5-dev,
libtiff5-dev is not (yet) providing libtiff-dev (but conflicting
with libtiff4-dev providing
it)
itk4 and libvtk5-dev depending on
On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 13:09 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Other architectures show a regression in that now the libraries don't
even build whereas before they did build. Still others claim a
dependency installability problem for minc or gdcm.
[1]
there seems to be a new build-depends complication:
libgeotiff-dev depends on libtiff5-dev,
libtiff5-dev is not (yet) providing libtiff-dev (but conflicting with
libtiff4-dev providing
it)
itk4 and libvtk5-dev depending on libtiff-dev
that makes it impossible to satisfy
On i386, seven tests segfault which I can reproduce on my machine in a
32-bit chroot.
and those segfaults seems to go back to FFT facilities:
As with 4.0.0, it builds and tests OK on my amd64, but has not yet
been successful on any other architecture [1] although some builds
have not yet
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 07:56:40PM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote:
We just tagged the Git repository this morning with:
v4.1.0
Would you mind trying this one ?
Done: 4.1.0 was uploaded yesterday to Debian/experimental.
We (ITK developers) will be happy
to track any
BTW -- just to keep itk4 packaging going forward: tried to build it on
sid, seems to build (32bit tools on 64bit kernel) but some tests
fail/segfault:
The following tests FAILED:
589 - itkFFTWF_FFTTest (SEGFAULT)
590 - itkFFTWF_RealFFTTest (SEGFAULT)
591 -
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 09:47:50AM -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
BTW -- just to keep itk4 packaging going forward: tried to build it on
sid, seems to build (32bit tools on 64bit kernel) but some tests
fail/segfault:
is that something known?
I discovered the same. I got the packages to
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 09:47:50AM -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
BTW -- just to keep itk4 packaging going forward: tried to build it on
sid, seems to build (32bit tools on 64bit kernel) but some tests
fail/segfault:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:18:34PM +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:53:16PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
As such, I think it would be a disservice to our users to force an
abrupt transition by
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 08:38:44AM -0500, Dominique Belhachemi wrote:
Steve,
Thanks for all the work.
It would be good to have ITK4 in 'experimental'. Having coexisting
packages is nice to have but will cause probably too much trouble
(especially if we build all the language wrappers
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 08:38:44AM -0500, Dominique Belhachemi wrote:
Steve,
Thanks for all the work.
It would be good to have ITK4 in 'experimental'. Having coexisting
packages is nice to have but will cause probably
Luis,
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Luis Ibanez luis.iba...@kitware.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Michael Hanke m...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 08:22:27AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:10:50PM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote:
As
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 4:43 AM, Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 08:38:44AM -0500, Dominique Belhachemi wrote:
Steve,
Thanks for all the work.
It would be good to have ITK4 in 'experimental'. Having coexisting
packages is nice to have but will cause probably
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
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 01:25:46PM -0500, Dominique Belhachemi wrote:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 4:43 AM, Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 08:38:44AM -0500, Dominique Belhachemi wrote:
Steve,
Thanks for all the work.
It would be good to have ITK4 in
Steve,
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca 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
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 09:07:34PM +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
Steve,
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca 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'.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:53:16PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
As such, I think it would be a disservice to our users to force an
abrupt transition by uploading ITK 4 and removing ITK 3. Instead, I
propose to keep ITK 3.20.1 in Debian and upload a new source package,
insighttoolkit4 (or
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:53:16PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
As some of you know ITK, the Insight Toolkit, version 4.0.0 was
released last month [1]. This is a major update from the previous
version 3.20.1, and upstream deliberately broke the API in certain
cases [2].
...
I am in the
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 08:22:27AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:10:50PM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote:
As maintainer of the upstream project I will
be more than happy to help solve any difficulty.
Ahhh, ITK *and* GT.M upstream? Is this by chance or is there some
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:14:01AM +0100, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:53:16PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
As some of you know ITK, the Insight Toolkit, version 4.0.0 was
released last month [1]. This is a major update from the previous
version 3.20.1, and
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:53:16PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
As such, I think it would be a disservice to our users to force an
abrupt transition by uploading ITK 4 and removing ITK 3. Instead, I
propose to keep ITK
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Andreas Tille andr...@an3as.eu wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:10:50PM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote:
As maintainer of the upstream project I will
be more than happy to help solve any difficulty.
Ahhh, ITK *and* GT.M upstream? Is this by chance or is there some
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 06:45:39AM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote:
This is because VistA is very much like a combination
of an operating system and a collection of applications.
Maybe at some point we can brainstorm on this with
you and Bhaskar off-line ?
I have no idea whether this
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Michael Hanke m...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 08:22:27AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:10:50PM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote:
As maintainer of the upstream project I will
be more than happy to help solve any
GinkgoCADx should work with ITK4, but:
* Shoul be patched (itkOrientedImage was vanished). Trivial patch.
* Color space interpretation in GinkgoCADx for gdcm2.0 is not completed yet.
We have just initiallized tests with debian unstable again.
Best regards.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:43 AM,
Hi Carlos,
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 02:10:38PM +0100, Carlos Barrales wrote:
GinkgoCADx should work with ITK4, but:
* Shoul be patched (itkOrientedImage was vanished). Trivial patch.
* Color space interpretation in GinkgoCADx for gdcm2.0 is not completed yet.
We have just initiallized tests
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 02:10:38PM +0100, Carlos Barrales wrote:
GinkgoCADx should work with ITK4, but:
* Shoul be patched (itkOrientedImage was vanished). Trivial patch.
* Color space interpretation in GinkgoCADx for gdcm2.0 is not completed yet.
We have just initiallized tests with debian
On 01/24/2012 06:45 AM, Luis Ibanez wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Andreas Tilleandr...@an3as.eu wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:10:50PM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote:
As maintainer of the upstream project I will
be more than happy to help solve any difficulty.
Ahhh, ITK *and* GT.M
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:06:03AM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote:
Maybe at some point we can brainstorm on this with
you and Bhaskar off-line ?
[KSB] Actually, we should use the list as much as possible so that
the discussion is captured and archived in a searchable format.
Could not have said
On 01/24/2012 11:08 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:06:03AM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote:
Maybe at some point we can brainstorm on this with
you and Bhaskar off-line ?
[KSB] Actually, we should use the list as much as possible so that
the discussion is captured and archived
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Bhaskar, K.S ks.bhas...@fisglobal.comwrote:
On 01/24/2012 11:08 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:06:03AM -0500, Bhaskar, K.S wrote:
Maybe at some point we can brainstorm on this with
you and Bhaskar off-line ?
[KSB] Actually, we
Hi,
As some of you know ITK, the Insight Toolkit, version 4.0.0 was
released last month [1]. This is a major update from the previous
version 3.20.1, and upstream deliberately broke the API in certain
cases [2].
As such, I think it would be a disservice to our users to force an
abrupt
Steve,
This is great !
Thanks for your efforts on packaging ITK.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca wrote:
Hi,
As some of you know ITK, the Insight Toolkit, version 4.0.0 was
released last month [1]. This is a major update from the previous
version 3.20.1,
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 09:53:16PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
As such, I think it would be a disservice to our users to force an
abrupt transition by uploading ITK 4 and removing ITK 3. Instead, I
propose to keep ITK 3.20.1 in Debian and upload a new source package,
insighttoolkit4 (or
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:10:50PM -0500, Luis Ibanez wrote:
As maintainer of the upstream project I will
be more than happy to help solve any difficulty.
Ahhh, ITK *and* GT.M upstream? Is this by chance or is there some
connection?
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
60 matches
Mail list logo
