Re: blast+ packaging
Olivier Sallou <olivier.sallou@irisa.fr> writes:
> please feel free to commit in my dir. It will indeed be easier than merging.
Done, thanks. I also threw in some improvements to the copyright file that
I'd meant to propose earlier:
* Remove the stanza for (c++/)scripts/projects/xmlwrapp/*, whose LICENSE
file documents material absent from the ncbi-blast+ archive.
* Adjust other upstream-related stanzas' Files specifications to prefix
c++/ and cover include in addition to src as appropriate.
> For dir updates, be it ncbi-blast+ or ncbi-blast-plus, I would rather
> like you update directly in my branch. We can, after that, "mv" the svn
> dir to ncbi-blast+ once everything is ok from packaging point of view.
That's fair, and no problem -- quite the contrary, when I was starting to
commit to ncbi-blast+ (before the Alioth glitch and your latest reply), I
didn't split my changes into individual commits quite as cleanly as I'd
meant to, so re-committing them in ncbi-blast-plus gave me a good
opportunity to correct that.
> Please tell me once you have included your updates so that I recheck the
> package on my side.
I have. Here are the remaining issues of which I'm aware, none of which
should necessarily hold up an initial upload:
* As previously mentioned, the linkage is still somewhat of a mess.
* Also as mentioned, there are no individual manpages.
* The standards version is slightly outdated; somebody should review the
upgrading checklist to see if advancing it requires any packaging changes.
* As I recall, there was some interest in incorporating RMBLAST, the patch
for which risked changing the standard applications' behavior. I expect
it should be possible to stay out of trouble by building it in a separate
copy of the source tree and linking it statically against any patched
libraries (and their reverse dependencies).
> Regarding legacy, I prefered keeping it as separate package to avoid some
> confusion and get it only if required on backward compatibility. Though,
> if you think we should keep it in the same package, it is ok for me.
OK, thanks for the explanation; I've kept the split.
--
Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org)
http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/?amu@monk.mit.edu
Reply to: