Re: Status of seqan
Hi again,
is it correct to assume that packaging seqan2 version 2.2 instead of 2.1
is the right way to go and should I help doing so?
Kind regards
Andreas.
On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 09:10:27AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> 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
>
>
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: