Re: Considering hijacking bioperl.
Le Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 05:12:41PM +0200, Steffen Moeller a écrit :
> Hi Charles,
> thank you for reviving BioPerl. I find BioPerl 1.4 to be referenced here and
> there, still, and would also be reluctant to just substitute it. How would
> you think about having the packages BioPerl1.4 and BioPerl1.5 in analogy to
> how we are treating libraries in parallel? A virtual package BioPerl could
> then retrieve whatever we consider to be the current and maybe also update a
> symbolic link. Would you consider this reasonable? Or too much of an
I am not 100 % sure, but it seems to me that the CVS HEAD of bioperl is
called "bioperl-live", so maybe we could make such a package, which
would provide bioperl.
Would dpkg or apt be smart enough to pickup bioperl-live if
- foo Depends: bioperl ( >= 1.5.2 );
- bioperl is 1.4;
- bioperl-live Provides: bioperl 1.5.2 and Conflicts: bioperl.
(got to re-read the policy to check if we can have versionned
Have a nice day,