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

Re: How to submit software for addition to BioLinux?

Hi Simon,

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:03:32AM +0000, Simon Sadedin wrote:
> groovy 2.3.4 : exists already but is only version 2.0.0~beta2

No idea where you get this version number from.  But for developing new
packages you need to build against unstable and here we have:

$ LANG=LC_ALL apt-cache policy groovy2
  Installed: (none)
  Candidate: 2.2.2+dfsg-3
  Version table:
     2.2.2+dfsg-3 0
        501 file:/home/ftp/pub/debian/ testing/main amd64 Packages
        501 http://http.debian.net/debian/ testing/main amd64 Packages
         50 http://http.debian.net/debian/ unstable/main amd64 Packages

In case 2..2. is not sufficient but you really need 2.3.4 I would
recommend to do

   reportbug groovy2
      "New version available"
      Severity: wishlist

   I would be happy if version <your minimum version requirement>
   would be packaged since it is needed for <your package name>

> gpars 1.2.1 : exists already, but not sufficient version

Since the situation seems to be quite clear in this case I did as
suggested above in this case (should be seen in BTS soon[1]).

> extra166y : not in debian, is in fedora
> smack 3.2.2 : not in debian, is in fedora

I have no idea whether this is technically helpful - perhaps you
can "steal" the package descriptions or so.  But at least it sounds
promosing that it is OK license-wise.
> The good news is that only two libraries are not existing at all, and
> those are already in Fedora. Is it helpful if there is a src rpm or is it
> just as easy to start from scratch?

I never used any srpm for packaging since I *assumed* (but never tested)
that starting from some similarly looking Debian package would be the
easiest way.  No idea about other experiences.  Just let us know if you
stumble upon any problem - we are here to help you.

Kind regards


[1] https://bugs.debian.org/src:libgpars-groovy-java


Reply to: