[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Status bowtie + tophat (Was: [Help] Need help for architecture specific code)



Hi,

I rephrase:  Does anybody have a better idea to get tophat into testing
than simply restrict it to amd64?

Kind regards

        Andreas.

On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 10:16:14PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Charles,
> 
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 04:14:09PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Le Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 07:30:21PM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> > > 
> > > What can we do to get tophat and bowtie into testing?
> > > 
> > >  tophat:
> > >     1. tophat only Recommends: bowtie2 | bowtie   or
> > >     2. tophat Architecture: amd64 kfreebsd-amd64
> > >  I think 1. is the better option
> > 
> > Hi Andreas,
> > 
> > In my understanding, it is not possible to run TopHat without Bowtie (version 1
> > or 2).  Therefore, the “Depends” relationship is the most appropriate.
> > 
> > Regarding the migration to Testing, it looks like both bowtie2 and bowtie must
> > be installable to satisfy “bowtie2 | bowtie”, so we need to adapt ourselves to
> > this constraint.  Here are two possible solutions to the problem :
> > 
> >   1. bowtie2 and bowtie provide a virtual “bowtie-aligner”, and tophat
> >      depends on “bowtie2 | bowtie-aligner”.
> > 
> >   2. tophat depends on bowtie2 only.
> 
> I do not think that this is necessary.  If tophat would be tophat
> 
>    Architecture: amd64 kfreebsd-amd64
> 
> it can migrate smoothly since the "Depends: bowtie2 | bowtie" is
> perfectly fullfilled on these architectures.  The only thing is that
> this means we give up in trying to build bowtie (1) on other than amd64
> architectures.
> 
> > Given that bowtie and bowtie2 can be co-installed, and given that most users
> > will want to use Bowtie 2 with TopHat, how about solution 2 ?
> 
> I'm fine with any solution which has tophat in Jessie on the practically
> used architectures.  A bonus would be if it would work on all
> architectures and as far as I understand people on debian-mentors the
> amd64 optimisation code is overestimated but I guess we will not make it
> without upstream and I do not remember that upstream mindet about any
> response in this thread.
> 
> 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: [🔎] 20140824201614.GI31838@an3as.eu">https://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 20140824201614.GI31838@an3as.eu
> 
> 

-- 
http://fam-tille.de


Reply to: