Re: Considering hijacking bioperl.
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Charles Plessy wrote:
first of all, bioperl 1.5.2 is not the official stable release, so I
feel reluctant to replace 1.4.0 yet. Having it in experimental would
facilitate the preparation of packages depending on the next stable
release, however.
Well, but there are many other packages containing software based on
upstream releases that are not declared as stable. Sometimes it depends
from the philosophy of the upstream authors. The decision about which
release should go to experimental or to unstable is more based on
fits the needs of unstable users and is not known to break terribly.
If you think the package is not good enough for testing filing an
RC bug stating this clearly is sometimes the way to go. You mentioned
that other applications need higher libbioperl. If these applications
are sitting in unstable it would make no sense to move the package to
experimental - but finally it is your decision.
In addition, the package will recommend many perl libraries which are
not packaged yet. In many case, these libraries are not necessary for
core functionalities, so I guess that experimental is the correct
section for bioperl 1.5.2 for the moment...
Well, OK this might be some reason.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: