Re: BioSquid - should it be removed from the archive?
Le Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 01:45:10PM +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
>> I just checked the HMMER3 sources, and they do not contain (bio)squid, so the
>> hmmer-squid would not have a long life.
>>
>> Squid is two different things:
>>
>> - a C library, which we do not package.
>> - some utilities built (statically?) with this C library, which we ship in the
>> biosquid package. Most utilities seem to have a counterpart in EMBOSS.
>
> So do you think an "emboss-squid" package taking over the role of my
> imaginary hmmer-squid package would do basically what our users want?
Well, my gut feeling is that EMBOSS is famous enough, so unless somebody
provides wrappers as you suggested (I will not have time for this), an
"emboss-squid" package would be superfluous.
In the end, the best would be to find some biosquid users and ask them what
they think. A NEWS.Debian file could do the job, but as they are translated by
Debian translation teams, we should think twice before.
Since it is a general case anyway, how about asking on -devel, with the aim at
proposing a patch to the Developer's reference?
Undecided,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: