Re: Considering hijacking bioperl.
Le Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 09:38:25AM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> This is really a trick question. You might either try it or
> ask on debian-devel (debian-mentors ?) or just try it. If it
> does not work this way I would probably do my next try by droping
> the verison number in the Provides line. This should work if
> bioperl-live has version number >= 1.5.2 at least according to
> my understanding of these things which is perhaps not really
> up to date.
Hi all, hi Andreas,
I asked on the bioperl mailing list, "bioperl-live" refers to the head
of the CVS, and actually, it would be more precise to call the current
Debian bioperl package "bioperl-core", because there is much more in
bioperl...
Since there is much more to package to have a full bioperl distribution,
I think I will try to keep it simple with the current bioperl package :
version 1.4.0 in Etch, and 1.5.2 or higher in Lenny and backports. I
even had an answer on the bioperl mail list saying that 1.5.2 is more
stable than 1.4.0... Having everything in duplicate would be a heavy
overhead.
With a growing number of applications depending on bioperl in Debian, I
think that we will have internal cues to decide about when doing
further transitions.
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
http://charles.plessy.org
Wako, Saitama, Japan
Reply to: