Bug#657288: transition: gdcm
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: - binNMU insighttoolkit I've now scheduled that and will look at scheduling the other packages (see http://release.debian.org/transitions/html/gdcm.html) once insighttoolkit's done. excellent ! igstk is not using gdcm API and thus does not required a rebuild What about the other packages which appear to build-depend on gdcm but not end up with a run-time dependency? According to the tracker, that'd be ants, itksnap and vtkedge. I did checked all of them from my sid/schroot and none links to libgdcm* directly. They do not require a rebuild. $ readelf -d /usr/lib/libvtkKWEWidgets.so $ readelf -d /usr/bin/itksnap $ readelf -d /usr/bin/ANTS Using ldd I can see gdcm*.so.2.2 appears so this looks ok to me. Thanks -- Mathieu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/ca+7wuszupn37ayk8wjn3sox04yaknfzncrgbnugyynqarrp...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#657288: transition: gdcm
On Wed, 2012-01-25 at 11:13 +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: GDCM 2.2.0 introduces a new ABI, as seen on #655783 and al. Since API (whatever that means for C++) is preserved, would it be a good time to - move gdcm 2.2.0 from experimental to unstable We've covered that one already. :-) - binNMU insighttoolkit I've now scheduled that and will look at scheduling the other packages (see http://release.debian.org/transitions/html/gdcm.html) once insighttoolkit's done. igstk is not using gdcm API and thus does not required a rebuild What about the other packages which appear to build-depend on gdcm but not end up with a run-time dependency? According to the tracker, that'd be ants, itksnap and vtkedge. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1328386217.2616.37.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#657288: transition: gdcm
On 02.02.2012 20:55, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: On Wed, 2012-01-25 at 11:13 +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: GDCM 2.2.0 introduces a new ABI, as seen on #655783 and al. Since API (whatever that means for C++) is preserved, would it be a good time to - move gdcm 2.2.0 from experimental to unstable Apparently the lack of an explicit no - having waited less than a week - was taken as an implicit yes. That's unfortunate, given that it means that the gdcm transition is now tied together with the mono transition which we were very close to finishing. [...] I completely understand your point and I will not upload any new gdcm. In any case if you decide to revert to gdcm 2.0 watch very carefully for #657288 since it introduce a change in the API without any SONAME bump. Thanks. I suspect that's not the bug number you intended to reference though. I initially made the very first upload of gdcm 2.2 because of #657779, which I thought would help in the mono transition. Fixing the bug helped, yes. The SONAME bump not so much. :-) I choose to upload directly 2.2.0 (vs a gdcm 2.0.19) since it clearly state the SONAME bump and I assume this would make the life of everybody else much easier. In particular I assumed having gdcm 2.2 would help the ITK4 transition, also debated on debian-release [1]. It may make ITK4 easier; we'll see. What it looks like we'll end up doing is pushing the new gdcm in to testing much earlier than we normally would, to get the mono transition finished; britney allows us to keep the shared libraries for both 2.0 and 2.2 in testing while we sort out the reverse-dependencies. We'll then look at finishing off the gdcm transition. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/156abc65387928c2eed7381c70626...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org
Bug#657288: transition: gdcm
tags 657288 + pending thanks On Wed, 2012-01-25 at 11:13 +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: GDCM 2.2.0 introduces a new ABI, as seen on #655783 and al. Since API (whatever that means for C++) is preserved, would it be a good time to - move gdcm 2.2.0 from experimental to unstable Apparently the lack of an explicit no - having waited less than a week - was taken as an implicit yes. That's unfortunate, given that it means that the gdcm transition is now tied together with the mono transition which we were very close to finishing. I'm hoping that we can resolve that without either having to delay mono for a while longer or asking for a temporary reversion to gdcm 2.0. In the meantime, if you wouldn't mind holding off on further uploads of gdcm unless any serious issues arise that would be appreciated. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1328213595.26956.6.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Processed: Re: Bug#657288: transition: gdcm
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: tags 657288 + pending Bug #657288 [release.debian.org] transition: gdcm Added tag(s) pending. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 657288: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=657288 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.13282136305206.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#657288: transition: gdcm
Hi Adam, On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: On Wed, 2012-01-25 at 11:13 +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: GDCM 2.2.0 introduces a new ABI, as seen on #655783 and al. Since API (whatever that means for C++) is preserved, would it be a good time to - move gdcm 2.2.0 from experimental to unstable Apparently the lack of an explicit no - having waited less than a week - was taken as an implicit yes. That's unfortunate, given that it means that the gdcm transition is now tied together with the mono transition which we were very close to finishing. I am truly sorry for any mess I am responsible for. I'm hoping that we can resolve that without either having to delay mono for a while longer or asking for a temporary reversion to gdcm 2.0. In the meantime, if you wouldn't mind holding off on further uploads of gdcm unless any serious issues arise that would be appreciated. I completely understand your point and I will not upload any new gdcm. In any case if you decide to revert to gdcm 2.0 watch very carefully for #657288 since it introduce a change in the API without any SONAME bump. I initially made the very first upload of gdcm 2.2 because of #657779, which I thought would help in the mono transition. I choose to upload directly 2.2.0 (vs a gdcm 2.0.19) since it clearly state the SONAME bump and I assume this would make the life of everybody else much easier. In particular I assumed having gdcm 2.2 would help the ITK4 transition, also debated on debian-release [1]. Anyway thanks for taking the time to answer my request for gdcm transition. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2012/01/msg00650.html -- Mathieu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CA+7wUsw9+qAgRNottk39rpXi7rRB4xp3=fm9nxwh0k+hqlh...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#657288: transition: gdcm
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition GDCM 2.2.0 introduces a new ABI, as seen on #655783 and al. Since API (whatever that means for C++) is preserved, would it be a good time to - move gdcm 2.2.0 from experimental to unstable - binNMU insighttoolkit igstk is not using gdcm API and thus does not required a rebuild Thanks -- System Information: Debian Release: 6.0.1 APT prefers stable-updates APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable'), (200, 'testing'), (100, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120125101355.18716.9444.report...@hpdesk.malat.net
