Re: Role of libeazel

[Steffen Moeller <smoesmoesmoe@googlemail.com>]

Hello,

Andreas Tille wrote:

> 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.
> 
> What do you think about this?

It seems like a good idea to have those pieces as separate libraries. The drive
towards it should come from upstream, though, not from us. We should
nonetheless prepare for it. I could imagine that both the HMMER and the
Infernal packages offer a binary package libeazel-hmmer/libeazel-infernal and
that these are given the tag "Provides: libeazel".

The problem with this approach is that we have the packaging work twice, the
pro is that we don't need to care about the versioning.

Cheers,

Steffen