Re: Status of seqan

[Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu>]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 12:52:54PM +1000, Kevin Murray wrote:
> 
> There were many complex merge conflicts between master and upstream. It was
> actually a lot easier to resolve than I expected. It's now ready for review.
> However, it would be great if someone could take a close look at the package,
> particularly to ensure that the source is exactly what upstream provides (I've
> tried to check this with git, and I think I got it right, but more experienced
> eyes may differ).

When trying to compare Upstream with the Git archive I stumbled upon the
first question:  Any reason to stick to version 2.1.0 if 2.2.0 is out?
May be the question is naive, but if we have trouble managing a single
seqan version (we failed to fix bugs for a long time) and now agreed
upon the need for two versions - old 1.4.2 (see my other mail) and 2.x
series, does the status of the Git repository mean you intend to package
2.1 and 2.2 separately?
 
> > > Shall we start with a "simple" libseqan2-dev package with the latest upstream
> > > version (2.2.0)? I'll see if I can build on Michael's work in the seqan2
> > > package.
> > 
> > Yes, please keep it as simple as possible (but not simpler :-P ).
> 
> Working on this now. There are already a couple of errors, so we'll see how I
> go. I'll try to push early and often, so don't assume that the repo is in a
> working state :).

No visible commit since

commit 003f498e234ecc31229f6ba624c9d1afc6618d0d
Author: Kevin Murray <spam@kdmurray.id.au>
Date:   Thu Jul 21 17:54:39 2016 +1000

Did you pushed regularly?  Please git pull - I've fixed Vcs fields.

Kind regards

      Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de