[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New version of fast5 does not build

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:59:36PM -0800, Afif Elghraoui wrote:
> >OK, seems like something we want to do later (I'd prefer a separate
> >package for a separate download tarball since in the end this might be
> >easier to maintain - but nothing to do here for the moment whatever we
> >do).
> >
> I agree. Multi-orig tarballs are a pain in the neck to maintain, at least
> with gbp.

> >Seems you know better than me whet to do here as well.
> >
> >>daligner/dazzdb/dascrubber probably have new upstream snapshots that need to
> >>be packaged.
> >
> >OK, these do not create any singnal on my dashboard so I'll leave this
> >for now.
> That is because upstream doesn't make releases. I've just updated them now.

Yes, I know.  BTW, I have usccessfully requested release tags for
pbbarcode.  So I personally will open an issue for any Github project
I'm stumbling upon since it has no tags.  I have heard about that these
developers are a bit stubborn about tags but I'll try my own luch
> >Sure.  That's for most of us the normal situation.  I did not intended
> >to create any pressure - just wanted to coordinate a bit.  We do what we
> >manage to do and if some newer version is not ready than be it so.  I
> >just wanted to prevent that I might have used some spare cycles to
> >polish old software if some new might have pending tasks I could have
> >easily done.
> >
> In case you are referring to pbbarcode, that upstream has deprecated some
> software while people are still relying on it, so I don't consider this a
> waste.

Yes, upstream of pbbarcode confirmed its deprecated but its now tagged
and thus does not create any noise any more in our QA tools.  BTW, I
restricted the test suite to some tests since the second part took
*incredibly* long (so long that I even stopped the process on my
laptop).  I'm not sure whether this is "*intended operation* or whether
this is a sign of a failure.

But no, I was not refering to any specific package in my paragraph above.

> pbh5tools is in a similar situation.

I left it untouched since it did not raised any signal in the QA tools.

Kind regards



Reply to: