Re: Role of acedb-other-belvu and acedb-other-dotter versus belvu & dotter from seqtools

[Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de>]

On 20.10.17 17:10, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 04:23:37PM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote:
>>> I started to check the list of external packages of possibly interesting
>>> packages and stumbled upon blixem which is part of seqtools[1].  The
>>> source also contains dotter and belvu and seems to be actively
>>> maintained.  However, the packages acedb-other-belvu and
>>> acedb-other-dotter from source acedb (which is orphaned upstream)
>>> contain the same executable names and it seems the programs are doing
>>> the same.  My packaging attempt on seqtools[2] went quite smoothly but
>>> surely needs some polishing - most probably also dynamic linking against
>>> a common library.  Before I'll spent additional time cycles I'd like to
>>> know your opinion whether we should simply replace the orphaned belvu
>>> and dotter versions from the acedb package or if not how we should
>>> proceed otherwise.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>>     Andreas.
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.sanger.ac.uk/science/tools/seqtools
>>> [2] https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-med/seqtools.git
>> Looks good to me. How about proposing that as a MoM project?
>> I'd volunteer as a mentor.
> The problem is not the packaging itself.  The question is whether
> those equally named tools can be replaced or not.

>From what I read - yes.

Steffen