On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 12:29:53AM -0700, Afif Elghraoui wrote:
> >
> > OK, that's a fair point. I recently had this point in the (not yet
> > finished) mugsy package where upstream admitted to have patched the
> > included code copy of mummer version 3.20 while Debian ships mummer
> > 3.23. I did the following: Download mummer version 3.20 from upstream
> > and create a diff from mugsy's code copy.
>
> This is basically what I proposed to do before.
Fine. I might need to read more thoroughly than.
> > I applied this diff to
> > Debian's mummer version 3.23 and this is now part of the official Debian
> > package.
>
> While I still think the tests should pick up any errors resulting from
> using a newer, vanilla release, I think the possibility of something
> like this happening and eventually making its way upstream would be
> worth doing.
>
> > So to be sure you can at least check the diff whether kmer
> > upstream has patched the lib to some extend. If there is no diff you
> > are done - if not it might be worth inspecting it more deeply.
> >
>
> I will check. Like I said before, while grepping the source I found some
> signs that this is likely the case.
OK, feel free to discuss the diff here in case you might be in doubt.
> > In general: While it makes perfectly sense to do the library packaging
> > "the proper way" (TM) I think we could apply some pragmatism here and
> > see what approach will be the more direct way to a usable package
> > without any practical constraints. So if you think static libraries are
> > OK - at least for the moment - I have no problem if you do so.
>
> I think so. I'm hoping upstream will cooperate if he sees there is an
> upload to the official archive.
>
> I didn't get to work on the package today, but I just need to take care
> of the manpages as discussed before.
Just take your time and thanks for your thorough work on this.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de