Re: BioCocoa
Le Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 03:46:42PM -0700, Scott Christley a écrit :
>
> Anyways, so thinking ahead, if we start getting more applications in
> BioCocoa, maybe we don't want a separate package for each application?
> How about having just three main packages?
>
> biococoa
> biococoa-examples
> biococoa-apps
>
> The disadvantage to this is that you might be getting more than you want
> if you just want a single application, but it certainly makes it easier
> than managing lots of packages. The applications may have their own
> release cycle, so biococoa-apps would really be gathering the latest
> version of a set of applications and packaging them together. Of course
> this is all theoretical right now, but good to think about the overall
> structure ahead of time.
Hi Scott,
I added you to the Alioth team, welcome on board :)
Debian is a binary distribution, but the package organisation is
source-centric. It will be much easier that any BioCocoa application
that exists upstream as a file archive (.zip, .tar.gz, .tar.bz2, ...)
has its own Debian source package. We have some tools to minimise the
work overhead of working with many packages, such as our tracking system
( http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=debian-med-packaging@lists.alioth.debian.org ),
and tools to factorise the code in debian/rules, such as debhelper and
CDBS. Many of our helper tools will not work so well if we gather all
the upstream sources in one single Debian source package.
Also, it is transparent for the end user what the origin of a binary
package is. We can build the binary package containing SequenceConverter
from the biococoa source package, and eventually from a new source
package if you decide to make it a fully separated project some day.
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: