[Debian-med-packaging] Bug#753809: Re: Bug#753809: ginkgocadx: will not display studies

[Mathieu Malaterre]

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Karsten Hilbert
<Karsten.Hilbert at gmx.net> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:40:02PM +0100, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
>> >> Is there any news regarding this bug ?
>> >>
>> >> It is rather serious: Because of this bug Ginkgo CADx
>> >> is rather useless for serious clinical care on Debian.
>> >
>> > I admit I feel helpless about this issue.  However, if you think that
>> > this issue is serious than you should tag the bug that way to make more
>> > people aware of it.  The consequence would be that ginkgocadx will not
>> > be released with Jessie if it will not be fixed.  I keep upstream in CC
>> > (Carlos, feel free to read the whole story here [1]).
>>
>> Here is the only technical information in this bug report:
>>
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=753809#15
>>
>> [...]
>> > We found many issues in GDCM 2.x which is provided with debian bundled ITK version.
>> [...]
>> AFAIR ITK/GDCM upstream has been fairly reluctant to apply patches.
>> [...]
>>
>> What exactly do you expect from me ? Please stop CCing me on FUDs.
>>
>> I've happily applied patch for better integration of current ITK and
>> GDCM see recent changelog, so stop saying things like "fairly
>> reluctant", or at least include the context.
>>
>> As for the so-called "many issues in GDCM 2.x", please include actual
>> details to reproduce them.
>
> Mathieu, what do you expect me to do other than the following ?
>
> 1) supply a detailed explanation of how to reproduce the problem
>
>     I did.
>     Did you try to reproduce the problem ?

Let's summarize it (as I see it).

You found a bug in A (ginkgocadx), which uses B (ITK) which in turns
uses C (GDCM).
Upstream for A says: "this is not our fault it is somewhere in B or C".

I believe somewhere in between A or B there is a missing link to
report *exactly* what is wrong with C. You've gently reported a bug
report for A, they confirmed this is a bug, and even confirmed the bug
is somewhere in B or C.

I am not going to re-do the above work, because I've never used A, and
upstream for A was very precise in saying that the bug was in B or C.

In summary yes I expect a bug report for C to be somewhat minimalist,
but don't ask me to use A -> B -> C to dig a bug somewhere in A. The
chain as I see it is that either someone from A or B is capable of
reporting a reduced test case for C.

-M