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

Re: Update on Trinityrnaseq packaging

Hi Michael,

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:03:48PM +0000, Michael Crusoe wrote:
> > [Reply to list only]
> We are oppositely calibrated :-D I prefer to be CC'd even when I am a
> subscriber and you don't.

Well, I've got my calibration as a beginner @lists.debian.org.
Sometimes you get rude comments if you ignore the list policy which is
to not CC subscribers.  I like to propagate this message in a nicer way.
:-)  Just to let you know when posting to other lists ...
> >
> >     debian/rules get-orig-source
> >
> > ... or if you want to save your bandwidth via
> >
> >     mk-origtargz --repack --compress xz <path_to_original_download_source>
> >
> Yeah, I had tried that; I get this head-scratching response:
> mcrusoe@athyra:~/debian/trinityrnaseq$ mk-origtargz --repack --compress xz
> ../v2.0.3.tar.gz
> tar: trinityrnaseq-2.0.3/Butterfly/src/lib/jung-graph-impl-2.0.1.jar: Not
> found in archive
> tar: trinityrnaseq-2.0.3/Butterfly/src/lib/jung-api-2.0.1.jar: Not found in
> archive
> tar: trinityrnaseq-2.0.3/Butterfly/src/lib/jung-algorithms-2.0.1.jar: Not
> found in archive
> tar: trinityrnaseq-2.0.3/Butterfly/src/lib/java-getopt-1.0.13.jar: Not
> found in archive
> tar: trinityrnaseq-2.0.3/Butterfly/src/lib/collections-generic-4.01.jar:
> Not found in archive
> tar: trinityrnaseq-2.0.3/Butterfly/src/lib/Jaligner.jar: Not found in
> archive
> tar: trinityrnaseq-2.0.3/Butterfly/prev_vers/Butterfly_r2013_08_14.jar: Not
> found in archive
> tar: Exiting with failure status due to previous errors
> (I checked and they do exist)

I'll check later - I'm in a hurry, right now.

Just watch the commits.
> > > Nothing coming up. Probably Broad Foundation employees / interns. I think
> > > they are covered by the existing entry.
> >
> > Finally it does not matter what you think but what you can convince
> > ftpmaster to accept. ;-)
> >
> Indeed, but it'll get properly packaged with transdecoder. Lacking an
> upstream distribution site makes a pretty clear case for not having its own
> package.

Well, fine for me whatever you consider the most promising approach.  I
just wanted to make you aware that there might be other hurdles if you
avoid this one. :-)

Kind regards



Reply to: