[Insight-developers] [slicer-devel] Strawman: ITK 3 tag to use with slicer

[Bill Lorensen]

For example, is there a SLICER_USE_SYSTEM_ITK, SLICER_USE_SYSTEM_VTK,
SLICER_USE_SYSTEM_CTK, etc...

I don't want be a PITA, I just want to make sure that we don't spend
time on a non-supported use-case.

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Bill Lorensen <bill.lorensen at gmail.com> wrote:
> But who is doing this now? Is this a common use case?
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Steve Pieper <pieper at ibility.net> wrote:
>> You should be able to do it just by setting the ITK_DIR with cmake in the
>> build directory and then remaking.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Bill Lorensen <bill.lorensen at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree about the version explosion. I wish we did not have this
>>> diversion.
>>>
>>> So, do we currently support a slicer with an installed system ITK
>>> version? How do I configure a build to use it? I'd like to try it.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Steve Pieper <pieper at ibility.net> wrote:
>>> > Hi Bill -
>>> >
>>> > Most developers build their own and most users will get the binary
>>> > package
>>> > of slicer that comes with ITK (and other things) pre-compiled.  The
>>> > special
>>> > case is debian/ubuntu, where we'd like to be able to provide a slicer
>>> > package that relies only on the standard system installed versions of
>>> > all
>>> > libraries.  Presumably the same approach would work for other linux
>>> > distributions too, although nobody is working on those, I think.
>>> >
>>> > Aside from the convenience for linux distributions, I think it would be
>>> > good
>>> > practice not to have too many versions of ITK floating around.
>>> >
>>> > -Steve
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Bill Lorensen <bill.lorensen at gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Do not most slicer developers build their own version of ITK? Or do
>>> >> they use a system ITK?
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Stephen Aylward
>>> >> <stephen.aylward at kitware.com> wrote:
>>> >> > Hi,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Using superbuild to apply patches doesn't help create a version of
>>> >> > ITK
>>> >> > that can be used with the Debian package of Slicer.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Perhaps the version of ITK being used with Slicer should become ITK
>>> >> > v3.21 instead of cherrypicking from it.   I believe what your are
>>> >> > proposing would only provide one feature difference between ITK3.20
>>> >> > and 3.21, i.e., the ability to compile on gcc4.6 - doesn't seem like
>>> >> > a
>>> >> > good reason for a whole new release.   By not including the other
>>> >> > patches that the Slicer folks are providing we loose the chance to
>>> >> > build itk with 64bits and fix other bugs.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > s
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Bill Lorensen
>>> >> > <bill.lorensen at gmail.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> Folks,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> We have been discussing multiple issues in this thread. I propose
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> following strawman (my knowledge of all of the different config
>>> >> >> possibilities is limited):
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> 1) ITK 3.20, should build with gcc4.6. Apparently Debian is using
>>> >> >> gcc4.6.
>>> >> >>    We should apply the minimum patches to ITK 3.20 to compile with
>>> >> >> 4.6. These seem to be a small number of changes.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> 2) The specialised patches to ITK 3.20 (e.g. 64 bit support)
>>> >> >> required
>>> >> >> for Slicer3/4 can be delivered via the Slicer3/4 superbuild
>>> >> >> mechanism.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> 3) Slicer4 patches to ITKv4 should follow the procedures to add
>>> >> >> changes to ITK:
>>> >> >> http://itk.org/Wiki/ITK_Release_4/New_Code_Contribution_Process .
>>> >> >> The
>>> >> >> goal will be to have Slicer4 build/test with ITKv4.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Slicer is an important ITK customer and the Slicer/ITK community has
>>> >> >> large overlap and funding.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Let's refine these topics and come to consensus.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Bill
>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >> slicer-devel mailing list
>>> >> >> slicer-devel at bwh.harvard.edu
>>> >> >> http://massmail.spl.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/slicer-devel
>>> >> >> To unsubscribe: send email to
>>> >> >> slicer-devel-request at massmail.spl.harvard.edu with unsubscribe as
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> subject
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ==============================
>>> >> > Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D.
>>> >> > Director of Medical Imaging Research
>>> >> > Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office
>>> >> > http://www.kitware.com
>>> >> > stephen.aylward (Skype)
>>> >> > (919) 969-6990 x300
>>> >> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>
>