Re: [Fwd: bio-das.* (was Re: New upstream release of GBrowse)]
Anthony Boureux wrote:
> So, I will submit a RFP bug and do the package.
ITP - since you have "interest to pack".
> But I have one more question :
> I thought to name the package as libbio-das-proserver-perl, as a lot of
> perl library. But Bio::Das::ProServer, as wrote in the name, is a
> server, so do you think it will be better to call it :
> bio-das-proserver-perl or even bio-das-proserver. However, I will keep
> libbio-das-perl for Bio::Das, libbio-das-lite-perl for Bio::Das::Lite
> (when it will be possible to package) because there are client library.
Hm. Is there any chance to see a bio-das-proserver implemented in anything else but Perl?
If not, then bio-das-proserver is the right name for it. I share your opinion on
libbio-das-perl and libbio-das-lite-perl.
> Steffen Moeller a écrit :
>> Anthony Boureux wrote:
>>> So, my questions for the packaging team (I not really an expert with the
>>> debian policy) :
>>> Do you think I can split the package libbio-das-proserver, even if
>>> sub-package have less than 5 files ?
>> Yes, this is perfectly doable. I just did one which only has a single
>> symbolic link :)
>>> and if a sub-package is broken (libbio-das-proserver-proxysource-perl)
>>> because it can't be installed at this time without
>>> I can also remove this sub-package from the building process and wait
>>> until an upstream solution ?
>> Yes, this is just fine, too.