Re: [MoM] kmer-tools status update
Hi Afif,
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 02:58:58AM -0700, Afif Elghraoui wrote:
> >so we do have counter examples to this (surely not build with d-shlibs)
> >and so it might be possibly to forget d-shlibs and move around the files
> >via usual dh_install but I think we should draw a cutting line here. I'd
> >(strongly) recommend to upstream using autoconf + libtool to get a proper
> >build system and we could live with the static lib for the moment.
>
> Okay, but I wouldn't hold my breath for getting a new build system here.
> Upstream seems to have gone out of there way to get a build system with
> non-recursive Make. I'll have to bring this up with him and see what he
> says. If he's willing to go with it, I would probably end up being the one
> to implement it.
If upstream might be willing to adopt this this would be at least a
solution. In the end you need to outwight the time you spend to work
around a broken build system and the time you might need to implement a
sensible build system.
I remember that this was one of my first packages (wordnet) back in the
90th when I did it the first time and when locking back from now it was
the correct thing to do. There is no ensurance that this will really be
the case.
> By the way, wgs-assembler uses the same build system. The upside, though, is
> that it doesn't make any libraries--at least as far as I know.
Lets hope new processing will be a bit faster and I have seen some nice
accepts in the last couple of days. :-)
> >point. I think this is a sign that the clean target does not leave the
> >directory tree in the same state as before the first build which has the
> >effect that the package does not build twice in a row. This is
> >considered an error and there are people running checks on the archive
> >from time to time and file according bug reports.
>
> That is strange. I will have to keep an eye out for this behavior, but I'd
> rebuild several times at one sitting throughout the packaging process and
> haven't encountered any such issues. This might just be a problem with the
> sharedlibs branch.
May be the latter is the case.
> >For the moment I do
> >not consider this a large enough problem to stop me from uploading to
> >new and so I did this. :-)
>
> Thank you!
You are welcome - the most work was done on your side anyway. :-)
> >Thanks for your good work on this complex package for a MoM project
>
> And thank you for your help and support throughout the process.
I admit I'm quite happy that I started the MoM project since it has
brought us new packages and more importantly new team members.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: