Re: [MoM] incorporating phyutility into the packages
Hi Stephen,
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:38:44PM -0400, Stephen Smith wrote:
> I would be happy to take a look at the copyright contents. However, I am
> a bit new to this so not exactly sure which bits are missing. Not trying
> to be dense, just not sure.
The fact that Thorsten was talking about jebl might give (also me ... I
overlooked this as well) a hint: You should mention third party software
with their copyright as well. It seems Thorsten had a section
Files: src/jebl/*
in mind.
> Maybe Andreas or you could point me in the
> right direction and I can fix things. Aha, the copyright needs the jebl
> authors as well I am guessing?
Yes. May be there is other third party code included?
> As for jebl being a separate package, it is a bit complicated. The original
> one is no longer maintained (http://sourceforge.net/projects/jebl/) though
> this older one is the one that is included in phyutility. Seems like those
> sources aren't even available anymore. There is an updated
> (https://code.google.com/p/jebl2/) one, but this is not the one used by
> phyutility.
Perhaps you might be able to shed some light into something which is
also unclear to me (as the Uploader of jebl2). The jebl* library is
used in some phylogeny related projects and I have picked the last
maintained version. I hope(!) that it is this version which is used
by all its rdependant packages:
$ apt-cache rdepends libjebl2-java | grep -v med-bio
libjebl2-java
Reverse Depends:
beast-mcmc
spread-phy
figtree
I think I talked to the authors of these packages before to be sure but
I do not exactly remember. At least the packages are building without
problems against this library and from a quick look are working (and no
bug reports so far but this is not a sure sign for low popcon software).
> So from phyutility's perspective, I am not sure it would be
> helpful to have jebl2 as a package. Again, new to this, so happy to do
> whatever is best.
Again repearing that I have no idea about jebl / jebl2: Could you
imagine using jebl2 because this *is* maintained? Or are you continue
maintaining this jebl code in phyutility. I'm just a bit suspicious
since I personally would try to follow the maintained code (if possible)
rather than conserving old code. It would be great if you would share
your reasons.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: