Re: blast+ packaging
Tim Booth <avarus@fastmail.fm> writes:
> 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...
Thanks for getting the review process started! I'll give more feedback
once I've had time to take a closer look at the packaging, but in the
meantime here's my take on the points you've raised.
> 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.
Indeed; while there's no need for the convenience copies of zlib, bzlib, or
libpcre, their presence poses no legal complications, so it should suffice
to document them in debian/copyright. For that matter, there's also no
need to spell out "-plus."
> Do we really need all boost libs installed to build and run correctly?
No, libboost-test-dev should suffice, and even then only if you want to
build (and presumably run) the test suite. I also see no need for build
dependencies or explicit runtime dependencies on shared libraries.
> I don't think we can get away with having this package conflict with
> blast2.
Right, coexistence would be better, and I like the renaming idea. That
said, I would consider alternatives and diversions to be legitimate
possibilities as well; likewise for shipping an additional package that
just arranges by whatever means for rpsblast et al. to run BLAST+ binaries.
--
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: