Re: please let ugene be autobuilt
Hi Mattia,
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:04:27AM +0000, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > Before you try you can never know whether writing a mail to upstream
> > takes longer / is less successful than writing to nonfree@r.d.o. :-P
>
> oh, from what you wrote I thought you already tried that!
Not yet. The reason is that *proper* maintenance of ugene needs way
more time to replace the duplicated code by Debian packaged binaries
etc. I guess I need some more time to tackle the issue as a whole and
thus I concentrated on other issues first. I try to priorise packages
at user requests and I have some pending requests open which will keep
me busy for some time. From the users in my own institute the
preferences are set to beast-mcmc, beast2-mcmc (not yet in Debian),
spades (not yet in Debian), igv, gatk (not yet in Debian). All of them
have some tricky parts and getting these all into the next stable
release would be really great.
> > > Anyway, given that you confirmed my fears about nonfree@r.d.o, I'm
> > > building it here and I'm going to do a binary-only upload of it once
> > > done.
> > > This package is blocking the procps transition to complete, that is.
> > > https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-procps.html :)
> >
> > Ahh, OK, that's a fair reason. Thanks for your effort.
>
> my experiment with crafting a binary-only upload half worked, as it did
> get installed correctly, but spammed debian-med-packaging@ with 3
> unwanted emails. well, it still worked :)
We'll bear that. ;-)
Thanks for your help in any case
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: