Re: State of the embassy-* packages in Squeeze.
I have an interest here, as I am mapping EMBOSS with BioLib - and
versioning plays a role.
Appears to me that supporting Embassy has less of an interest with the
core EMBOSS team. EMBOSS is changing - that is what counts. If anyone
cares to keep Embassy it would make sense to package it with an
earlier version. Only way to guarantee some stability. I would not try
option 3, unless you are heroic. Who is using Embassy now?
I have seen complaints about the size of the repository, but would it
not make sense to create Embassy-with-EMBOSS-6.2? And an updated
EMBOSS-6.3? Or is this against policy?
With nixos this would not be a problem. Nix transparently supports
different versions of dependencies.
Pj.
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 07:52:31AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:16:31PM -0400, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 08:55:32 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >
> > > To put the emboss and embassy packages in consistency in Squeeze, here are
> > > possible solutions:
> > >
> > > - Remove the embassy-* packages from testing.
> > > - Upload emboss 6.2 to testing-proposed-updates.
> > > - Upgrade embassy-* packages with the latest upstream version, that builds
> > > against emboss 6.3, and let emboss 6.3 in testing.
> > >
> > 1 would be ok with me, 2 would not, and 3 would depend on the timeframe
> > and on the amount of changes it represents.
>
> As well as Charles I have a strong preference for option 3.
>
> > (Other release team members
> > may have other opinions though.)
>
> That means we should wait for the opinion of other release team members?
> I'm just asking because this remark leaves us unclear in what direction
> we should proceed.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Andreas.
>
> --
> http://fam-tille.de
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: 20100811055231.GA24858@an3as.eu">http://lists.debian.org/20100811055231.GA24858@an3as.eu
>
Reply to: