Re: RFS: cdk 1.4.9-1
On 2012-05-24 06:25, Onkar Shinde wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Egon Willighagen
> <egon.willighagen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> I'm happy to look at a full error report! (Not sure I can get around
>> to setting up an environment for building it myself... (I've done it
>> in the past, but have to relearn the steps each time...)
>
> I will look into the build failure over weekend. I think one reason
> might be that I forgot to clean javadocs in the clean target in
> d/rules.
>
Seems like a plausible reason. :)
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Except that the python-cinfony package needs updating too, and that
>> may imply having to updated rdkit and openbabel as well... (nothing
>> wrong with that, of course! :)
>
> A quick check of packages suggests that openbabel and rdkit are recent
> enough for cinfony 1.1. But it seems to have gained new
> (build)dependencies. So I am not sure how easy the task will be for
> packaging latest cinfony.
> Given this scenario, my suggestion is to target the cdk packaging for
> 'experimental' and then file a wishlist bug against cinfony for the
> upgrade request (or simply test current version against new cdk). If
> we are lucky then both will make into archives before freeze. Let me
> know what you think.
>
> Cheers,
> Onkar
Personally I have no issues with targetting this for experimental; in
fact I think it makes perfect sense to use experimental for possible
API/ABI issues[1].
~Niels
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/Transitions
"""
[...], you are more than welcome (and even encouraged) to use experimental.
"""
Reply to: