Re: [Fwd: bio-das.* (was Re: New upstream release of GBrowse)]

[Anthony Boureux <Anthony.Boureux@gmail.com>]

Hi,
thanks,
So, I will submit a RFP bug and do the package.
But I have one more question :
I thought to name the package as libbio-das-proserver-perl, as a lot of 
perl library. But Bio::Das::ProServer, as wrote in the name, is a 
server, so do you think it will be better to call it : 
bio-das-proserver-perl or even bio-das-proserver. However, I will keep 
libbio-das-perl for Bio::Das, libbio-das-lite-perl for Bio::Das::Lite 
(when it will be possible to package) because there are client library.

Anthony.

Steffen Moeller a écrit :
> Anthony Boureux wrote:
>
> [...]
> > So, my questions for the packaging team (I not really an expert with the
> > debian policy) :
> > Do you think I can split the package libbio-das-proserver, even if
> > sub-package have less than 5 files ?
> Yes, this is perfectly doable. I just did one which only has a single symbolic link :)
>
> > and if a sub-package is broken (libbio-das-proserver-proxysource-perl)
> > because it can't be installed at this time without
> > libparallel-useragent-perl.
> > I can also remove this sub-package from the building process and wait
> > until an upstream solution ?
> Yes, this is just fine, too.
>
> Steffen