[Pkg-phototools-devel] [hugin-ptx] Re: hugin-0.7.0_beta5 released

[Cyril Brulebois]

Cc'ing pkg-phototools…

Bruno Postle <bruno at postle.net> (28/07/2008):
> On Sun 27-Jul-2008 at 06:33 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > If we have to stick with plan 1, we'll provide enblend 3.1 and
> > probably hugin 0.7 (once it's released) through backports.org, which
> > should be a not-so-bad solution for people that would need full
> > features.
> 
> Ok, if you are going to combine hugin-0.7.0 and enblend-3.0 I 
> suggest that you ship a dummy 'enfuse' with this enblend.deb that
> looks something like this:
> 
>    #!/bin/sh
>    echo "Error, you need at least enblend-3.1 for exposure blending"
>    /bin/false

… since Sebastian might include that in a further upload of 3.0, which
should be granted a freeze exception since it's mostly documentation
(I'm thinking of such a script with a pointer to a file documenting the
situation).

> > - I've added enblend to the dependencies of the hugin package, which
> >   contains hugin, hugin_stitch_project, and nona_gui. I think it's
> >   the right place, but maybe it's also needed for one (or several)
> >   of the binaries that are available in the hugin-tools package
> >   (that is: all the other binaries)?
> 
> none of the binaries call enblend directly, but if you are stitching
> using the Makefile system on the command-line then you would need
> nona, make, exiftool and enblend (and enfuse if you are 'exposure
> blending').

Looks like I've got to learn more about that Makefile system, then. At
least someone having installed “hugin” (hugin-gui) should be safe.

> So the hugin GUI definitely requires enblend, the 'normal' use of the
> command-line tools would usually involve enblend, but it is quite
> possible that there is a valid use of the hugin command-line tools
> that doesn't involve enblend.
> 
> > - Same question for make, and exiftool.
> 
> hugin-gui requires: hugin-tools, enblend, make, exiftool

OK, I got this right at least.

> hugin-tools suggests: enblend, make, exiftool

That, not yet, but since I believe most users will install “hugin”,
which pulls “hugin-tools”, they should be safe anyway. I'll fix this
when possible.

Thanks for your answers.

> Done, sorry we haven't integrated them into the install target yet.

No problem, I still had my tiny loop around, and I kept it in our
Makefile.

Mraw,
KiBi.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-phototools-devel/attachments/20080729/25becced/attachment.pgp