[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Considering hijacking bioperl.

Le Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 05:12:41PM +0200, Steffen Moeller a écrit :
> Hi Charles,
> thank you for reviving BioPerl. I find BioPerl 1.4 to be referenced here and 
> there, still, and would also be reluctant to just substitute it. How would 
> you think about having the packages BioPerl1.4 and BioPerl1.5  in analogy to 
> how we are treating libraries in parallel? A virtual package BioPerl could 
> then retrieve whatever we consider to be the current and maybe also update a 
> symbolic link. Would you consider this reasonable? Or too much of an 
> overhead?

Hi Steffen,

I am not 100 % sure, but it seems to me that the CVS HEAD of bioperl is
called "bioperl-live", so maybe we could make such a package, which
would provide bioperl.

Would dpkg or apt be smart enough to pickup bioperl-live if

 - foo Depends: bioperl ( >= 1.5.2 );
 - bioperl is 1.4;
 - bioperl-live Provides: bioperl 1.5.2 and Conflicts: bioperl.

(got to re-read the policy to check if we can have versionned

Have a nice day,


Reply to: