[Insight-users] ITK 3.16 Packages for Ubuntu Karmic Koala (9.10)

[Mathieu Malaterre]

Luis,

  That is terrific ! At least Kitware's roadmap is clear ! Thanks so
much. Gaetan, could you remind me (us?) why you choose to developg
google/WrapITK instead of directly working on ITK/WrapITK ? Is it
possible to backport google/WrapITK into ITK ?

  Thanks again !

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Luis Ibanez <luis.ibanez at kitware.com> wrote:
> Mathieu,
>
> As we move forward to ITK 4.0, it is likely that WrapITK will
> become the official way of wrapping ITK, and at that point
> Paul's way of of packaging should probably become the
> standard.
>
> At this point, however, the fault is really on us, as developers of
> the toolkit, for not having made our minds about fully supporting
> one wrapping system or the other.
>
> Hopefully, ITK 4.0 will give us the opportunity to clean up
> many corners of the toolkit.
>
>     Luis
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Paul Novotny <paul.novotny at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>>   I still do not understand why you insist on building an outside
>>> ubuntu package.
>>
>> Well, I build them for my own internal use, and just decided to release
>> them to the public. Since there are people who use and appreciate it, I
>> continue to do it.
>>
>>>
>>> Ref:
>>> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/insighttoolkit
>>>
>>>   What is wrong with the one in ubuntu ? Why not work with the
>>> ubuntu-team to get issues fixed ? Why not work with the debian-med
>>> team to get it fixed (earlier in the pipeline) ?
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with the ubuntu/debian version. They appear to be
>> using the CSWIG wrapping version. I have used and continue to use
>> WrapITK in my own work, and therefor create the packages. So there is
>> nothing to 'fix'.
>>
>>>   BTW, I did post a couple of days ago about usage of CSWIG vs WrapITK
>>> vs WrapITK. It seems you have chosen the solution #2 (the unmaintained
>>> WrapITK shipped with ITK). Could you comment on your choice please ?
>>
>> As far as why I chose #2, well, I think the post from Gaëtan Lehmann you
>> referenced perfectly sums up why (if you don't mind me paraphrasing).
>> CSWIG is older and doesn't have as much itk coverage. Wrapitk, great
>> python integration, better itk coverage, and is tested and stable. The
>> new WrapITK, while faster, cleaner, and with better code coverage is
>> unstable, and isn't as well tested.
>>
>> So, in the end, I don't understand why you don't like it that I release
>> these packages?
>>
>> -Paul
>>
>> _____________________________________
>> Powered by www.kitware.com
>>
>> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
>> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>>
>> Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
>> http://www.kitware.com/products/protraining.html
>>
>> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at:
>> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ
>>
>> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-users
>>
>



-- 
Mathieu