Re: blast+ packaging
Hi Olivier,
I'm having a look at the package now. I've pushed some changes to SVN
already - I hope you don't mind. To explain...
I don't think you need to repack the source in this case. The
guidelines say to rename the tarball file, but not to change the
contents unless there is a pressing reason to do so. I've tweaked the
rules file to work with the pristine source.
Do we really need all boost libs installed to build and run correctly?
It might be worth looking which are really needed. I think I need to do
this in any case as libboost-all doesn't exist on Ubuntu Lucid.
I don't think we can get away with having this package conflict with
blast2. Though legacy_blast.pl handles some issues, there will be many
people who have old scripts that rely on old BLAST but also want
BLAST+. I considered using dpkg-divert to push rpsblast to rpsblast.old
but I don't think adding a package should modify an existing one like
this. The alternatives system might be appropriate but probably
confusing to most users in this case. The solution used previously on
BL is to have the newer rpsblast renamed rpsblast+, so I've done this
for your package for now.
What do you think?
Cheers,
TIM
On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 15:30 -0400, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> Olivier Sallou <olivier.sallou@irisa.fr> writes:
>
> > Would you mind having a look ? It is in svn at ncbi-blast-plus
>
> I'll be happy to, but probably won't have time until this weekend at the
> very soonest.
>
> --
> 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
>
>
--
To Err is human.
To Arrr is Pirate!
Reply to: