[MINC-development] Re: glim_image

[Jason Lerch]

On Mar 2, 2004, at 12:40 AM, Andrew Janke wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Jason Lerch wrote:
>
>>>> On this note, glim_image and things not packaged, does anyone have 
>>>> any
>>>> objections to glim_image being renamed (say to mincglm) and being
>>>> stuffed into
>>>> the base minc distro?  It is a nice pure vanilla C proggie that was
>>>> 'peter blessed' from what I know.
>>
>> Urm, it's not packaged? Could have fooled me. Check the statistics
>> directory under /software/source. And I see no particular reason to
>> rename it, though I don't have any strong objections either.
>
> The general consensus on this was to package glim_image as part of an
> extra_tools package was it not?

Why create a new package called extra_tools - doesn't conglomerate 
basically fit this bill?

>
> If all that is missing is packaging this is a somewhat easy task.  
> With respect
> to the renaming issue, I would only do this such that we can
>
>   a) dissociate glim_iamge from the minc_extras package

Now I'm confused - you want to create a separate package for 
glim_image? That already exists, nicely autoconfed and all. I thought 
you wanted to add it to the extras package.

>   b) get a bit of consistency into minc tools names.

Heh. Good luck. Next thing we know you'll also advocate writing some 
documentation ;-)

>
> I'm still keen for mincglm or this too broad of a name?

Isn't there some kinda rule that apps with minc in their name are 
general enough to deal with arbitrary dimensions? In which case I don't 
think that glim_image would qualify.

Jason