From steve at sumost.ca  Thu Sep  3 06:57:18 2015
From: steve at sumost.ca (Steve M. Robbins)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 05:57:18 -0500
Subject: [MINC-development] fix SOVERSION generation
In-Reply-To: <CAG0CB23NjUmrXNDy0J3o-su6jnusd3aeu_qaEBdO+DCO0Cokkw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1864792.8IK23feRCq@riemann>
	<CAG0CB23NjUmrXNDy0J3o-su6jnusd3aeu_qaEBdO+DCO0Cokkw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2894667.xSVdD0hhi0@riemann>

On August 25, 2015 02:51:37 PM Andrew Janke wrote:

> I take it this is still important for a Debian/Ubuntu build. Vlad +
> Bert: I'll be in Montreal on the 7th + 8th of September so am happy to
> go through what we used to do for a release to make sure that it
> worked for Steve.

On the topic of version numbers ... I'm now looking at the minc-tools sources 
and note the CMakeLists.txt sets the version to 1.0.00.  Since the last 
release of the tools was 2.0.00 (in the bundled "minc" source), I wonder if 
you could pick a number larger than that?  


Thanks,
-Steve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/pipermail/minc-development/attachments/20150903/f167dc4f/attachment.pgp>

From a.janke at gmail.com  Thu Sep  3 16:43:07 2015
From: a.janke at gmail.com (Andrew Janke)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 06:43:07 +1000
Subject: [MINC-development] fix SOVERSION generation
In-Reply-To: <2894667.xSVdD0hhi0@riemann>
References: <1864792.8IK23feRCq@riemann>
	<CAG0CB23NjUmrXNDy0J3o-su6jnusd3aeu_qaEBdO+DCO0Cokkw@mail.gmail.com>
	<2894667.xSVdD0hhi0@riemann>
Message-ID: <CAG0CB237E8Z3u12sV_gLb9Bq8V=7B839WaQTKqNGueqz9ELxfw@mail.gmail.com>

On 3 September 2015 at 20:57, Steve M. Robbins <steve at sumost.ca> wrote:
> On the topic of version numbers ... I'm now looking at the minc-tools sources
> and note the CMakeLists.txt sets the version to 1.0.00.  Since the last
> release of the tools was 2.0.00 (in the bundled "minc" source), I wonder if
> you could pick a number larger than that?

I wondered about that. Does it matter that the release numbers are
synced between the two packages? My thought is no as minc-tools is a
new package. What's the reasoning to making it a bigger number?   Or
is the plan to have minc-tools replace your existing minc-tools
package in Debian with libminc as a dependency? If this is the case I
understand and will make the change.


a

From steve at sumost.ca  Fri Sep  4 08:38:31 2015
From: steve at sumost.ca (Steve M. Robbins)
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 07:38:31 -0500
Subject: [MINC-development] fix SOVERSION generation
In-Reply-To: <CAG0CB237E8Z3u12sV_gLb9Bq8V=7B839WaQTKqNGueqz9ELxfw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1864792.8IK23feRCq@riemann> <2894667.xSVdD0hhi0@riemann>
	<CAG0CB237E8Z3u12sV_gLb9Bq8V=7B839WaQTKqNGueqz9ELxfw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2757579.TyRRL9ZFPN@riemann>

On September 4, 2015 06:43:07 AM Andrew Janke wrote:
> On 3 September 2015 at 20:57, Steve M. Robbins <steve at sumost.ca> wrote:
> > On the topic of version numbers ... I'm now looking at the minc-tools
> > sources and note the CMakeLists.txt sets the version to 1.0.00.  Since
> > the last release of the tools was 2.0.00 (in the bundled "minc" source),
> > I wonder if you could pick a number larger than that?
> 
> I wondered about that. Does it matter that the release numbers are
> synced between the two packages? My thought is no as minc-tools is a
> new package. 

Agree that there is no need to tie the two.

> What's the reasoning to making it a bigger number?   Or
> is the plan to have minc-tools replace your existing minc-tools
> package in Debian with libminc as a dependency? 

Yes, this.  

> If this is the case I
> understand and will make the change.

Appreciate it!  

One day I'll figure out how to generate proper pull requests for things like 
this.  Hopefully soon because I have another request coming up regarding the 
install of headers and the embedded copy of "niftii".

Cheers,
-Steve




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/pipermail/minc-development/attachments/20150904/64b84cf2/attachment.pgp>

From steve at sumost.ca  Thu Sep 10 22:57:38 2015
From: steve at sumost.ca (Steve M. Robbins)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:57:38 -0500
Subject: [MINC-development] MINC with NetCDF 4.4?
In-Reply-To: <CAAd5DeQrqeXFE-320GYtfe1a1DZSqbtJtfG9NjYzTYTB2OKVCA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2204850.mNumVZCYYR@riemann>
	<CAMCwi7NcYS9vP=GSUXKeC6YhVRU3NCqCuutM8AUbveddsdNBGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAd5DeQrqeXFE-320GYtfe1a1DZSqbtJtfG9NjYzTYTB2OKVCA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1489446.TLQXRFrHuR@riemann>

On August 24, 2015 07:18:09 PM Robert D. Vincent wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I've fixed the issue with netCDF 4.4 and checked the fix into the develop
> branch.
> 
> I agree that we should do an official release of the minc libraries and
> tools. 

Andrew fixed up the minc-tools version number.  Things look pretty good to me!  
Should we expect a merge to master and a release anytime soon?   If not, I can 
take a snapshot of develop to package in Debian.  But if an official tarball is 
immanent: I can hold off for a bit.

Thanks,
-Steve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/pipermail/minc-development/attachments/20150910/4a54acf0/attachment.pgp>

From robert.d.vincent at mcgill.ca  Fri Sep 11 00:25:09 2015
From: robert.d.vincent at mcgill.ca (Robert D. Vincent)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:25:09 -0400
Subject: [MINC-development] MINC with NetCDF 4.4?
In-Reply-To: <1489446.TLQXRFrHuR@riemann>
References: <2204850.mNumVZCYYR@riemann>
	<CAMCwi7NcYS9vP=GSUXKeC6YhVRU3NCqCuutM8AUbveddsdNBGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAd5DeQrqeXFE-320GYtfe1a1DZSqbtJtfG9NjYzTYTB2OKVCA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1489446.TLQXRFrHuR@riemann>
Message-ID: <CAAd5DeQdTdDW0ZMirk5y-BA4oYUSVvCN6hoZ9KLZ2NoZxd9g7Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Steve,

I can try to make an official tarball asap. For Debian packaging purposes,
can you handle separate tarballs for libminc and minc-tools?

    -bert


On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Steve M. Robbins <steve at sumost.ca> wrote:

> On August 24, 2015 07:18:09 PM Robert D. Vincent wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've fixed the issue with netCDF 4.4 and checked the fix into the develop
> > branch.
> >
> > I agree that we should do an official release of the minc libraries and
> > tools.
>
> Andrew fixed up the minc-tools version number.  Things look pretty good to
> me!
> Should we expect a merge to master and a release anytime soon?   If not, I
> can
> take a snapshot of develop to package in Debian.  But if an official
> tarball is
> immanent: I can hold off for a bit.
>
> Thanks,
> -Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> MINC-development mailing list
> MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca
> http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/pipermail/minc-development/attachments/20150911/92745907/attachment.html>

From steve at sumost.ca  Fri Sep 11 00:32:38 2015
From: steve at sumost.ca (Steve M. Robbins)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:32:38 -0500
Subject: [MINC-development] MINC with NetCDF 4.4?
In-Reply-To: <CAAd5DeQdTdDW0ZMirk5y-BA4oYUSVvCN6hoZ9KLZ2NoZxd9g7Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2204850.mNumVZCYYR@riemann> <1489446.TLQXRFrHuR@riemann>
	<CAAd5DeQdTdDW0ZMirk5y-BA4oYUSVvCN6hoZ9KLZ2NoZxd9g7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5036250.syciAVX9mB@riemann>

On September 11, 2015 12:25:09 AM Robert D. Vincent wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> 
> I can try to make an official tarball asap. For Debian packaging purposes,
> can you handle separate tarballs for libminc and minc-tools?

Yep, no problem.

Thanks!
-Steve

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/pipermail/minc-development/attachments/20150910/5c9a6749/attachment.pgp>

From a.janke at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 01:01:06 2015
From: a.janke at gmail.com (Andrew Janke)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:01:06 +1000
Subject: [MINC-development] MINC with NetCDF 4.4?
In-Reply-To: <CAAd5DeQdTdDW0ZMirk5y-BA4oYUSVvCN6hoZ9KLZ2NoZxd9g7Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2204850.mNumVZCYYR@riemann>
	<CAMCwi7NcYS9vP=GSUXKeC6YhVRU3NCqCuutM8AUbveddsdNBGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAd5DeQrqeXFE-320GYtfe1a1DZSqbtJtfG9NjYzTYTB2OKVCA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1489446.TLQXRFrHuR@riemann>
	<CAAd5DeQdTdDW0ZMirk5y-BA4oYUSVvCN6hoZ9KLZ2NoZxd9g7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAG0CB21sYMD+U3hUtfmyZfPJi-DYCNq+K4yXUy15APkrKomqPQ@mail.gmail.com>

minc-tools develop is fine for merge to master last I looked. The only
thing I haven't checked is if all remanants of automake and autoconf have
been removed.

there should be two archives in their respective github trees from my
perspective.

a
On 11/09/2015 2:26 pm, "Robert D. Vincent" <robert.d.vincent at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> Hi Steve,
>
> I can try to make an official tarball asap. For Debian packaging purposes,
> can you handle separate tarballs for libminc and minc-tools?
>
>     -bert
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Steve M. Robbins <steve at sumost.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On August 24, 2015 07:18:09 PM Robert D. Vincent wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I've fixed the issue with netCDF 4.4 and checked the fix into the
>> develop
>> > branch.
>> >
>> > I agree that we should do an official release of the minc libraries and
>> > tools.
>>
>> Andrew fixed up the minc-tools version number.  Things look pretty good
>> to me!
>> Should we expect a merge to master and a release anytime soon?   If not,
>> I can
>> take a snapshot of develop to package in Debian.  But if an official
>> tarball is
>> immanent: I can hold off for a bit.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Steve
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MINC-development mailing list
>> MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca
>> http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MINC-development mailing list
> MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca
> http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/pipermail/minc-development/attachments/20150911/c394b4e2/attachment.html>

From robert.d.vincent at mcgill.ca  Fri Sep 11 12:19:28 2015
From: robert.d.vincent at mcgill.ca (Robert D. Vincent)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:19:28 -0400
Subject: [MINC-development] MINC with NetCDF 4.4?
In-Reply-To: <CAG0CB21sYMD+U3hUtfmyZfPJi-DYCNq+K4yXUy15APkrKomqPQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2204850.mNumVZCYYR@riemann>
	<CAMCwi7NcYS9vP=GSUXKeC6YhVRU3NCqCuutM8AUbveddsdNBGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAd5DeQrqeXFE-320GYtfe1a1DZSqbtJtfG9NjYzTYTB2OKVCA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1489446.TLQXRFrHuR@riemann>
	<CAAd5DeQdTdDW0ZMirk5y-BA4oYUSVvCN6hoZ9KLZ2NoZxd9g7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAG0CB21sYMD+U3hUtfmyZfPJi-DYCNq+K4yXUy15APkrKomqPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAd5DeQRT1UV4A-H+VxnggDRKb4vbcbGKsVxSrTmWDDBxEXv-w@mail.gmail.com>

I've done the merge for libminc, but I'm finding that the either my brain
or the CPack packaging appears to be dysfunctional. I can't get a clean
source tarball that doesn't include all of the build junk. Any clues?

    -bert


On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Andrew Janke <a.janke at gmail.com> wrote:

> minc-tools develop is fine for merge to master last I looked. The only
> thing I haven't checked is if all remanants of automake and autoconf have
> been removed.
>
> there should be two archives in their respective github trees from my
> perspective.
>
> a
> On 11/09/2015 2:26 pm, "Robert D. Vincent" <robert.d.vincent at mcgill.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> I can try to make an official tarball asap. For Debian packaging
>> purposes, can you handle separate tarballs for libminc and minc-tools?
>>
>>     -bert
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Steve M. Robbins <steve at sumost.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On August 24, 2015 07:18:09 PM Robert D. Vincent wrote:
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > I've fixed the issue with netCDF 4.4 and checked the fix into the
>>> develop
>>> > branch.
>>> >
>>> > I agree that we should do an official release of the minc libraries and
>>> > tools.
>>>
>>> Andrew fixed up the minc-tools version number.  Things look pretty good
>>> to me!
>>> Should we expect a merge to master and a release anytime soon?   If not,
>>> I can
>>> take a snapshot of develop to package in Debian.  But if an official
>>> tarball is
>>> immanent: I can hold off for a bit.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Steve
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> MINC-development mailing list
>>> MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca
>>> http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MINC-development mailing list
>> MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca
>> http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> MINC-development mailing list
> MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca
> http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/pipermail/minc-development/attachments/20150911/99a2047c/attachment.html>

From vladimir.fonov at gmail.com  Fri Sep 11 12:47:51 2015
From: vladimir.fonov at gmail.com (Vladimir S. FONOV)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:47:51 -0400
Subject: [MINC-development] MINC with NetCDF 4.4?
In-Reply-To: <CAAd5DeQRT1UV4A-H+VxnggDRKb4vbcbGKsVxSrTmWDDBxEXv-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2204850.mNumVZCYYR@riemann>
	<CAMCwi7NcYS9vP=GSUXKeC6YhVRU3NCqCuutM8AUbveddsdNBGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAd5DeQrqeXFE-320GYtfe1a1DZSqbtJtfG9NjYzTYTB2OKVCA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1489446.TLQXRFrHuR@riemann>
	<CAAd5DeQdTdDW0ZMirk5y-BA4oYUSVvCN6hoZ9KLZ2NoZxd9g7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAG0CB21sYMD+U3hUtfmyZfPJi-DYCNq+K4yXUy15APkrKomqPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAd5DeQRT1UV4A-H+VxnggDRKb4vbcbGKsVxSrTmWDDBxEXv-w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55F305B7.2040300@gmail.com>

Do you build in separate directory?

On 15-09-11 12:19 PM, Robert D. Vincent wrote:
> I've done the merge for libminc, but I'm finding that the either my
> brain or the CPack packaging appears to be dysfunctional. I can't get a
> clean source tarball that doesn't include all of the build junk. Any clues?
>
>      -bert
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Andrew Janke <a.janke at gmail.com
> <mailto:a.janke at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     minc-tools develop is fine for merge to master last I looked. The
>     only thing I haven't checked is if all remanants of automake and
>     autoconf have been removed.
>
>     there should be two archives in their respective github trees from
>     my perspective.
>
>     a
>
>     On 11/09/2015 2:26 pm, "Robert D. Vincent"
>     <robert.d.vincent at mcgill.ca <mailto:robert.d.vincent at mcgill.ca>> wrote:
>
>         Hi Steve,
>
>         I can try to make an official tarball asap. For Debian packaging
>         purposes, can you handle separate tarballs for libminc and
>         minc-tools?
>
>              -bert
>
>
>         On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Steve M. Robbins
>         <steve at sumost.ca <mailto:steve at sumost.ca>> wrote:
>
>             On August 24, 2015 07:18:09 PM Robert D. Vincent wrote:
>             > Hi all,
>             >
>             > I've fixed the issue with netCDF 4.4 and checked the fix into the develop
>             > branch.
>             >
>             > I agree that we should do an official release of the minc libraries and
>             > tools.
>
>             Andrew fixed up the minc-tools version number.  Things look
>             pretty good to me!
>             Should we expect a merge to master and a release anytime
>             soon?   If not, I can
>             take a snapshot of develop to package in Debian.  But if an
>             official tarball is
>             immanent: I can hold off for a bit.
>
>             Thanks,
>             -Steve
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             MINC-development mailing list
>             MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca
>             <mailto:MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca>
>             http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         MINC-development mailing list
>         MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca
>         <mailto:MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca>
>         http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     MINC-development mailing list
>     MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca
>     <mailto:MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca>
>     http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MINC-development mailing list
> MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca
> http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>


-- 
Best regards,

  Vladimir S. FONOV ~ vladimir.fonov <at> gmail.com

From robert.d.vincent at mcgill.ca  Fri Sep 11 12:51:00 2015
From: robert.d.vincent at mcgill.ca (Robert D. Vincent)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:51:00 -0400
Subject: [MINC-development] MINC with NetCDF 4.4?
In-Reply-To: <55F305B7.2040300@gmail.com>
References: <2204850.mNumVZCYYR@riemann>
	<CAMCwi7NcYS9vP=GSUXKeC6YhVRU3NCqCuutM8AUbveddsdNBGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAd5DeQrqeXFE-320GYtfe1a1DZSqbtJtfG9NjYzTYTB2OKVCA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1489446.TLQXRFrHuR@riemann>
	<CAAd5DeQdTdDW0ZMirk5y-BA4oYUSVvCN6hoZ9KLZ2NoZxd9g7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAG0CB21sYMD+U3hUtfmyZfPJi-DYCNq+K4yXUy15APkrKomqPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAd5DeQRT1UV4A-H+VxnggDRKb4vbcbGKsVxSrTmWDDBxEXv-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55F305B7.2040300@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAd5DeR9vuqyFre5Udf5uf5XWnZMSiuE69ug0UqfpHgq2mU89g@mail.gmail.com>

Ahh, I see, I need to build completely outside of the source tree...

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Vladimir S. FONOV <
vladimir.fonov at gmail.com> wrote:

> Do you build in separate directory?
>
> On 15-09-11 12:19 PM, Robert D. Vincent wrote:
>
>> I've done the merge for libminc, but I'm finding that the either my
>> brain or the CPack packaging appears to be dysfunctional. I can't get a
>> clean source tarball that doesn't include all of the build junk. Any
>> clues?
>>
>>      -bert
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Andrew Janke <a.janke at gmail.com
>> <mailto:a.janke at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     minc-tools develop is fine for merge to master last I looked. The
>>     only thing I haven't checked is if all remanants of automake and
>>     autoconf have been removed.
>>
>>     there should be two archives in their respective github trees from
>>     my perspective.
>>
>>     a
>>
>>     On 11/09/2015 2:26 pm, "Robert D. Vincent"
>>     <robert.d.vincent at mcgill.ca <mailto:robert.d.vincent at mcgill.ca>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>         Hi Steve,
>>
>>         I can try to make an official tarball asap. For Debian packaging
>>         purposes, can you handle separate tarballs for libminc and
>>         minc-tools?
>>
>>              -bert
>>
>>
>>         On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Steve M. Robbins
>>         <steve at sumost.ca <mailto:steve at sumost.ca>> wrote:
>>
>>             On August 24, 2015 07:18:09 PM Robert D. Vincent wrote:
>>             > Hi all,
>>             >
>>             > I've fixed the issue with netCDF 4.4 and checked the fix
>> into the develop
>>             > branch.
>>             >
>>             > I agree that we should do an official release of the minc
>> libraries and
>>             > tools.
>>
>>             Andrew fixed up the minc-tools version number.  Things look
>>             pretty good to me!
>>             Should we expect a merge to master and a release anytime
>>             soon?   If not, I can
>>             take a snapshot of develop to package in Debian.  But if an
>>             official tarball is
>>             immanent: I can hold off for a bit.
>>
>>             Thanks,
>>             -Steve
>>
>>             _______________________________________________
>>             MINC-development mailing list
>>             MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca
>>             <mailto:MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca>
>>
>> http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>>
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         MINC-development mailing list
>>         MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca
>>         <mailto:MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca>
>>         http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     MINC-development mailing list
>>     MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca
>>     <mailto:MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca>
>>     http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MINC-development mailing list
>> MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca
>> http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>>
>>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>  Vladimir S. FONOV ~ vladimir.fonov <at> gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> MINC-development mailing list
> MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca
> http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/pipermail/minc-development/attachments/20150911/44c7e527/attachment-0001.html>

From robert.d.vincent at mcgill.ca  Fri Sep 11 15:29:25 2015
From: robert.d.vincent at mcgill.ca (Robert D. Vincent)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:29:25 -0400
Subject: [MINC-development] MINC with NetCDF 4.4?
In-Reply-To: <18419_1441990310_55F306A6_18419_103_1_CAAd5DeR9vuqyFre5Udf5uf5XWnZMSiuE69ug0UqfpHgq2mU89g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2204850.mNumVZCYYR@riemann>
	<CAMCwi7NcYS9vP=GSUXKeC6YhVRU3NCqCuutM8AUbveddsdNBGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAd5DeQrqeXFE-320GYtfe1a1DZSqbtJtfG9NjYzTYTB2OKVCA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1489446.TLQXRFrHuR@riemann>
	<CAAd5DeQdTdDW0ZMirk5y-BA4oYUSVvCN6hoZ9KLZ2NoZxd9g7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAG0CB21sYMD+U3hUtfmyZfPJi-DYCNq+K4yXUy15APkrKomqPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAd5DeQRT1UV4A-H+VxnggDRKb4vbcbGKsVxSrTmWDDBxEXv-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<55F305B7.2040300@gmail.com>
	<18419_1441990310_55F306A6_18419_103_1_CAAd5DeR9vuqyFre5Udf5uf5XWnZMSiuE69ug0UqfpHgq2mU89g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAd5DeTeC+bUHqiKN6N17d+v1TX+hLz8XwcqW6WK_DA+mSSmjg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

So the minc-tools and libminc projects are now merged and tagged, both at
2.3.00. "Develop" should now be even with "master."

Please check my work and make certain I haven't screwed up anything.

    -bert

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Robert D. Vincent <
robert.d.vincent at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> Ahh, I see, I need to build completely outside of the source tree...
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Vladimir S. FONOV <
> vladimir.fonov at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you build in separate directory?
>>
>> On 15-09-11 12:19 PM, Robert D. Vincent wrote:
>>
>>> I've done the merge for libminc, but I'm finding that the either my
>>> brain or the CPack packaging appears to be dysfunctional. I can't get a
>>> clean source tarball that doesn't include all of the build junk. Any
>>> clues?
>>>
>>>      -bert
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Andrew Janke <a.janke at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:a.janke at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     minc-tools develop is fine for merge to master last I looked. The
>>>     only thing I haven't checked is if all remanants of automake and
>>>     autoconf have been removed.
>>>
>>>     there should be two archives in their respective github trees from
>>>     my perspective.
>>>
>>>     a
>>>
>>>     On 11/09/2015 2:26 pm, "Robert D. Vincent"
>>>     <robert.d.vincent at mcgill.ca <mailto:robert.d.vincent at mcgill.ca>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         Hi Steve,
>>>
>>>         I can try to make an official tarball asap. For Debian packaging
>>>         purposes, can you handle separate tarballs for libminc and
>>>         minc-tools?
>>>
>>>              -bert
>>>
>>>
>>>         On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Steve M. Robbins
>>>         <steve at sumost.ca <mailto:steve at sumost.ca>> wrote:
>>>
>>>             On August 24, 2015 07:18:09 PM Robert D. Vincent wrote:
>>>             > Hi all,
>>>             >
>>>             > I've fixed the issue with netCDF 4.4 and checked the fix
>>> into the develop
>>>             > branch.
>>>             >
>>>             > I agree that we should do an official release of the minc
>>> libraries and
>>>             > tools.
>>>
>>>             Andrew fixed up the minc-tools version number.  Things look
>>>             pretty good to me!
>>>             Should we expect a merge to master and a release anytime
>>>             soon?   If not, I can
>>>             take a snapshot of develop to package in Debian.  But if an
>>>             official tarball is
>>>             immanent: I can hold off for a bit.
>>>
>>>             Thanks,
>>>             -Steve
>>>
>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>             MINC-development mailing list
>>>             MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca
>>>             <mailto:MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca>
>>>
>>> http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         MINC-development mailing list
>>>         MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca
>>>         <mailto:MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca>
>>>         http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     MINC-development mailing list
>>>     MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca
>>>     <mailto:MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca>
>>>     http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> MINC-development mailing list
>>> MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca
>>> http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>>
>>  Vladimir S. FONOV ~ vladimir.fonov <at> gmail.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MINC-development mailing list
>> MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca
>> http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MINC-development mailing list
> MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca
> http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/pipermail/minc-development/attachments/20150911/dd073d9e/attachment.html>

From steve at sumost.ca  Sat Sep 12 21:38:50 2015
From: steve at sumost.ca (Steve M. Robbins)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 20:38:50 -0500
Subject: [MINC-development] MINC with NetCDF 4.4?
In-Reply-To: <CAAd5DeTeC+bUHqiKN6N17d+v1TX+hLz8XwcqW6WK_DA+mSSmjg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2204850.mNumVZCYYR@riemann>
	<18419_1441990310_55F306A6_18419_103_1_CAAd5DeR9vuqyFre5Udf5uf5XWnZMSiuE69ug0UqfpHgq2mU89g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAd5DeTeC+bUHqiKN6N17d+v1TX+hLz8XwcqW6WK_DA+mSSmjg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3610747.RhXyGNL3Ka@riemann>

On September 11, 2015 03:29:25 PM Robert D. Vincent wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> So the minc-tools and libminc projects are now merged and tagged, both at
> 2.3.00. "Develop" should now be even with "master."


Thanks, Bert!  The updated libminc and minc-tools are on their way to Debian.

-Steve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/pipermail/minc-development/attachments/20150912/4ef986d6/attachment.pgp>

From steve at sumost.ca  Sun Sep 27 23:12:31 2015
From: steve at sumost.ca (Steve M. Robbins)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 22:12:31 -0500
Subject: [MINC-development] minc-tools has non-distributable files in the
	git tree
Message-ID: <1728793.xY7AjKNTQ7@riemann>

Hi,

I mistakenly believed that minc-tools was just a subset of the previously 
distributed "minc" tarball.  After uploading to Debian, however, a Debian ftp-
team member indicated that the files in conversion/gcomserver are not 
redistributable.  

In fact, there is a comment in the file stating:

 * Revision 1.16  2001-04-09 23:02:48  neelin
 * Modified copyright notice, removing permission statement since copying,
 * etc. is probably not permitted by our non-disclosure agreement with
 * Philips.

See https://github.com/BIC-MNI/minc-tools/commit/ee456a65b92ca6af39a84e7148602d1ea8e2b8a8

The directory conversion/gcomserver was not present in the original minc 
tarball, so something was added.   Several things, in fact.

Now, gcomserver is not used in the build anywhere.  So I simply stripped out 
that directory and the package still builds fine.  I asked Peter Neelin about 
this and he said it is code for a pre-DICOM Philips format/wire protocol.  
This seems unlikely to be of interest today so I believe the git repo could 
simply be scrubbed with no loss.

Peter also indicated that things like ecattominc and scxtominc were for 
similarly proprietary formats.  Like gcomserver, scxtominc is not  used today 
so presumably could be removed without loss.  The tools ecattominc (and 
minctoecat) on the other hand, are built.  Are they still relevant?  I can see 
Siemens has published a DICOM Conformance Statement about ECAT PET Systems.  
Would dcm2mnc work for ECAT today?

-Steve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/pipermail/minc-development/attachments/20150927/cd619ed5/attachment.pgp>

From a.janke at gmail.com  Sun Sep 27 23:45:48 2015
From: a.janke at gmail.com (Andrew Janke)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:45:48 +1000
Subject: [MINC-development] minc-tools has non-distributable files in
 the git tree
In-Reply-To: <1728793.xY7AjKNTQ7@riemann>
References: <1728793.xY7AjKNTQ7@riemann>
Message-ID: <CAG0CB20auSBO2+JqyMR44JZi0VmApWzOmn6ePa7Mm_qsp5kn0w@mail.gmail.com>

Hrm,

ecattominc is definitely relevant, the others I don't know. Note that
ecattominc was definitely in the old minc-tools .deb. FWIW, the
ecat file format is now well and truly in the public domain, the
header is very much self describing, perhaps not in the past.


a


On 28 September 2015 at 13:12, Steve M. Robbins <steve at sumost.ca> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I mistakenly believed that minc-tools was just a subset of the previously
> distributed "minc" tarball.  After uploading to Debian, however, a Debian ftp-
> team member indicated that the files in conversion/gcomserver are not
> redistributable.
>
> In fact, there is a comment in the file stating:
>
>  * Revision 1.16  2001-04-09 23:02:48  neelin
>  * Modified copyright notice, removing permission statement since copying,
>  * etc. is probably not permitted by our non-disclosure agreement with
>  * Philips.
>
> See https://github.com/BIC-MNI/minc-tools/commit/ee456a65b92ca6af39a84e7148602d1ea8e2b8a8
>
> The directory conversion/gcomserver was not present in the original minc
> tarball, so something was added.   Several things, in fact.
>
> Now, gcomserver is not used in the build anywhere.  So I simply stripped out
> that directory and the package still builds fine.  I asked Peter Neelin about
> this and he said it is code for a pre-DICOM Philips format/wire protocol.
> This seems unlikely to be of interest today so I believe the git repo could
> simply be scrubbed with no loss.
>
> Peter also indicated that things like ecattominc and scxtominc were for
> similarly proprietary formats.  Like gcomserver, scxtominc is not  used today
> so presumably could be removed without loss.  The tools ecattominc (and
> minctoecat) on the other hand, are built.  Are they still relevant?  I can see
> Siemens has published a DICOM Conformance Statement about ECAT PET Systems.
> Would dcm2mnc work for ECAT today?
>
> -Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> MINC-development mailing list
> MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca
> http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>

From steve at sumost.ca  Mon Sep 28 00:08:26 2015
From: steve at sumost.ca (Steve M. Robbins)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:08:26 -0500
Subject: [MINC-development] minc-tools has non-distributable files in
 the git tree
In-Reply-To: <CAG0CB20auSBO2+JqyMR44JZi0VmApWzOmn6ePa7Mm_qsp5kn0w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1728793.xY7AjKNTQ7@riemann>
	<CAG0CB20auSBO2+JqyMR44JZi0VmApWzOmn6ePa7Mm_qsp5kn0w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150928040826.GA9318@sumost.ca>

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 01:45:48PM +1000, Andrew Janke wrote:
> Hrm,
> 
> ecattominc is definitely relevant, the others I don't know. Note that
> ecattominc was definitely in the old minc-tools .deb.

Correct; ecattominc was in the old minc tarball.  I was sloppy to
imply otherwise.

The added ones are gcomserver and scxtominc (and others).

-Steve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 173 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/pipermail/minc-development/attachments/20150927/49d446ab/attachment.pgp>

From robert.d.vincent at mcgill.ca  Mon Sep 28 09:14:17 2015
From: robert.d.vincent at mcgill.ca (Robert D. Vincent)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:14:17 -0400
Subject: [MINC-development] minc-tools has non-distributable files in
 the git tree
In-Reply-To: <20150928040826.GA9318@sumost.ca>
References: <1728793.xY7AjKNTQ7@riemann>
	<CAG0CB20auSBO2+JqyMR44JZi0VmApWzOmn6ePa7Mm_qsp5kn0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150928040826.GA9318@sumost.ca>
Message-ID: <CAAd5DeTEC=+cO8VJ-u7hEwfQ+4FTTAwMtGr1AJy4s0qDttY-4w@mail.gmail.com>

Well, that's unfortunate, although I am always happy to remove obsolete
stuff from the distribution. I will get this sorted out today. Thankfully,
we now have a private Gitlab server I will use to keep the history of the
proprietary and obsolete converters.

    -bert


On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Steve M. Robbins <steve at sumost.ca> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 01:45:48PM +1000, Andrew Janke wrote:
> > Hrm,
> >
> > ecattominc is definitely relevant, the others I don't know. Note that
> > ecattominc was definitely in the old minc-tools .deb.
>
> Correct; ecattominc was in the old minc tarball.  I was sloppy to
> imply otherwise.
>
> The added ones are gcomserver and scxtominc (and others).
>
> -Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> MINC-development mailing list
> MINC-development at bic.mni.mcgill.ca
> http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-development
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/pipermail/minc-development/attachments/20150928/0b1055e4/attachment.html>