Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fastsurfer on conda / pip #618

Open
MariusCausemann opened this issue Dec 11, 2024 · 6 comments
Open

Fastsurfer on conda / pip #618

MariusCausemann opened this issue Dec 11, 2024 · 6 comments
Labels
duplicate This issue or pull request already exists enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@MariusCausemann
Copy link

Hi,
to ease installation of fastsurfer and its dependencies, especially, as part of a larger software stack, it would be very useful to have it installable via conda (or alternatively pip). Are there any plans to publish fastsurfer as a conda package, or is it something you would consider?
Thank you!

@MariusCausemann MariusCausemann added the enhancement New feature or request label Dec 11, 2024
@dkuegler
Copy link
Member

Hi Marius,

this wish has been asked previously in #262.

Eventually, this is intended, it is however not trivial because the structure of the project does not easily support this for multiple reasons.
Additionally, we recommend to use the official docker image (deepmi/fastsurfer) because that setup is tested and "certified" in quality. It will make it much easier for all to use (and for us to help users). In that context, singularity images are also available for security-restricted HPC environments.

Cheers

@dkuegler dkuegler added the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Dec 11, 2024
@MariusCausemann
Copy link
Author

Hi David,
thanks, I somehow missed that issue. I see that there are several difficulties with packaging fastsurfer, but maybe it would be worth it to start with a minimal version, e.g. only cpu and only the segmentation, without the freesurfer parts. I think something like that could cover quite some use cases and would be valuable for many, coming with a much liter footprint and easier integration in other projects than container based solutions.
Maybe something to consider?

@dkuegler
Copy link
Member

Thank you. I'll put this suggestion up for the next meetings :)

@m-reuter
Copy link
Member

I am totally in favor of that. The only problem so far was, that the structure of the repo is not great for a package. There were some efforts in first restructuring the repo. I didn't see much progress on that end recently and think it makes sense to not wait for it and longer.

@finsberg
Copy link

I would also be very interested in this, and I would also be willing to help out if there is anything I can do to help.

@m-reuter
Copy link
Member

thanks for offering your help, which is greatly appreciated. We will post here once we discussed the individual steps and what work items we have.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
duplicate This issue or pull request already exists enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants