Re: Role of libeazel
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 01:34:08PM +0200, Steffen Moeller wrote:
> 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.
Sure. That's why I putted upstream in CC. IMHO the interest of
upstream in consolidating their code is much higher than ours. We are
perfectly able to simply build their tarballs and ignoring the fact that
code is duplicated. But on their side code duplication is not a good
idea.
> 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.
... and it is probably not worth the effort.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: