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

Re: Please check med-bio-ngs, med-bio-phylo and med-cloud

Hi, Andreas,

على الثلاثاء 24 كانون الثاني 2017 ‫00:59، كتب Andreas Tille:
> Hi Afif,
> On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 02:38:32PM -0800, Afif Elghraoui wrote:
>> Ok, so I will plan to move things out of med-bio into the more specific ones
>> in the next few days.
> I think it is a bit late now but I do not see any harm done.

Yes, I'm sorry about that. When I looked at this, I started getting
distracted by why we are maintaining med-bio-* separately instead of
directly adding to science-bio-*. Even though we as Debian Med are
maintaining it, I don't think that presenting this sort of
"implementation detail" to users/administrators is worth any confusion.

Right now we have science-bio depending on med-bio. If I moved on, we
would have had science-bio > med-bio > med-bio-ngs, med-bio-phylo. When
I saw previous discussions of this science-bio/med-bio situation on list
archives, it was that it doesn't matter because the dependency resolver
considers them all the same.

Since all these tasks packages are part of the Blends group anyway, is
there any advantage for us to put all these scientific packages into
med-bio-* vs science-bio-*? There are technically differences between
biological software and biomedical software which I think get blurred
and might cause confusion.

>  Today I
> will upload the current status to make a "legal" upload to unstable that
> will reach testing automatically.  I'm perfectly fine if we do the
> restructuration in Stretch+1.

Sure. Reads like a plan.


Afif Elghraoui | عفيف الغراوي

Reply to: