[MINC-development] Re: glim_image

[Andrew Janke]

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Jason Lerch wrote:

> > 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?

Surely you jest?  Conglomerate is currently littered with stand-alone C-programs
that can be replaced with more general perl 10 liners.

> >   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.

glim_image is already autoconfed.  As is mincmorph and mincblob and a few
others.  I am thinking about mashing these and a few others into a minc-extras
type package.  There is no reason as to why they cannot all exist separately
though, in some ways this is better as when we relase a bug-fix for one package
the whole lot don't have to be re-released.

> >   b) get a bit of consistency into minc tools names.
>
> Heh. Good luck. Next thing we know you'll also advocate writing some
> documentation ;-)

heh.

> > 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.

glim_image does handle arbitrary dimensionality IIRC.


a