Re: Role of libeazel
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 10:17:51PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I intend to update the Debian package of infernal to the newest stable
> version (1.0). I just noticed that it contains a copy of libeazel. I
> became curious about this library because it looked rather like a
> separate piece of code. My research enedet up in another copy of this
> library in hmmer 3.0b2 with a later time stamp. This makes me curious
> whether it makes sense to release this code as separate library tarball
> and build both programs, infernal and hmmer, against this library.
> >>From a software maintenance point of view this makes perfectly sense
> and even might enable other projects to profit from the library.
Well, all of easel (not eazel, apprently), infernal and hmmr seem to
have the same upstream, janelia.org.
In any case, it looks like easel doesn't seem to meant for installation
(no install rule) and has no library versioning (it just builds a static
lib AFAICT), so probably upstream is not guaranteeing any kind of API
stability.
Packaging this as a shared library might be difficult, but having it as
a static -dev library might be fine. Though it could be you need to
back/forward port either infernal or hmmr if they use incompatible
copies of easel. If they both compile and work fine with the same code,
that'd be a good sign.
Michael
Reply to: