Re: Packaging r-bioc-simpleaffy
- To: debian-med@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Packaging r-bioc-simpleaffy
- From: Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu>
- Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 09:02:41 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20110301080241.GA26750@an3as.eu>
- In-reply-to: <4D6C2F41.5050802@minke.ukfsn.org>
- References: <4D6836BA.4050106@minke.ukfsn.org> <4D68F45B.9020905@gmx.de> <20110226125951.95940@gmx.net> <20110226211232.GG31788@an3as.eu> <4D69793D.5040207@gmx.de> <4D6AF29E.1090004@minke.ukfsn.org> <20110228140909.GB17441@merveille.plessy.net> <4D6C1A1B.2090506@minke.ukfsn.org> <20110228221953.GF30847@an3as.eu> <4D6C2F41.5050802@minke.ukfsn.org>
Hi Tony,
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:26:57PM +0000, Tony Travis wrote:
>> Does it make sense to recalculate a Bioconductor deb repository over
>> and over instead of just mirroring the result of one single cran2deb
>> run which would be (re)done in a reasonable frequence?
>
> That's not really what I had in mind - I was thinking more about the
> detailed instructions for installing "cran2deb" that Charles mentioned.
> It seemed like something that would be more suitable to encapsulate in a
> deb package, rather than in a READ_ME for manual installation.
Ahh OK. I agree it often makes sense to have code packaged also for a
local installation. If it is in this sense I agree.
Thanks for the clarification
Andreas.
PS: Also thanks for your Debian criticism which seems valid modulo the
outdated version you experienced. I hope that Squeeze might have
given a different experience regarding Java support - later more
about this.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: