Re: pdb2pqr maintained by DebiChem team but in Debian Med repository?
- To: debian-med@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: pdb2pqr maintained by DebiChem team but in Debian Med repository?
- From: Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu>
- Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 21:31:55 +0100
- Message-id: <20091206203155.GA19877@an3as.eu>
- In-reply-to: <1260053941.15666.19.camel@charlie.peanuts.local>
- References: <20091016210144.GA11804@an3as.eu> <20091016222329.GD8560@nighthawk.chemicalconnection.dyndns.org> <4ADB30D2.6010708@gmx.de> <1255887422.10243.17.camel@charlie.peanuts.local> <20091101194758.GJ23240@nighthawk.chemicalconnection.dyndns.org> <1257152961.3694.1.camel@ce170155.zmb.uni-duisburg-essen.de> <20091205201640.GK4243@nighthawk.chemicalconnection.dyndns.org> <1260053941.15666.19.camel@charlie.peanuts.local>
On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 11:59:01PM +0100, Manuel Prinz wrote:
> PDB2PQR also contains embedded copies of code which are not needed at
> all. The size might justify repacking. Any opinions on that?
In many cases it is a matter of taste. I'm personally in favour of
repackaging if it saves certain amount of code for download and
mirroring.
> And what are the feeling towards the new source format? Is it OK with
> the group to use 3.0 (whatever) or should I leave it at 1.0?
Why not start using a new format if it is a new package. There are no
certain numbers about packages using the new format but having some
packages in this format let us gather some experience.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: