Re: BioSquid - should it be removed from the archive?
Le Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 01:05:34PM +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Steffen Moeller wrote:
>
>> HMMer directly ships with a variant of squid itself. We noticed some functions to have
>> been added. So, instead of hmmer suggesting biosquid, it could actually provide it.
>
> Sounds reasonable. Perhaps something like two binary packages
>
> hmmer (Depends: hmmer-squid)
> hmmer-squid (Provides/Replaces/Conflicts: bioquid)
>
> out of the hmmer source package comes to mind to enable the functionality of
> biosquid package without forcing users to install hmmer would provide a clean
> upgrade path - in case we can gain this with reasonable effort.
Hi again,
I just checked the HMMER3 sources, and they do not contain (bio)squid, so the
hmmer-squid would not have a long life.
Squid is two different things:
- a C library, which we do not package.
- some utilities built (statically?) with this C library, which we ship in the
biosquid package. Most utilities seem to have a counterpart in EMBOSS.
Maybe the simplest is to keep the biosquid package as long as it is not
problematic. But we need a way to tell our users that we do not intend to
commit ourself to make efforts for this package in the long term, in particular
for security updates and transitions to newer compilers. As Andreas pointed
out, it is not necessaryl a "bug".
We will face similar situations in the future. Maybe we need a dedicated page
on our website?
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: