Role of acedb-other-belvu and acedb-other-dotter versus belvu & dotter from seqtools
Hi,
I started to check the list of external packages of possibly interesting
packages and stumbled upon blixem which is part of seqtools[1]. The
source also contains dotter and belvu and seems to be actively
maintained. However, the packages acedb-other-belvu and
acedb-other-dotter from source acedb (which is orphaned upstream)
contain the same executable names and it seems the programs are doing
the same. My packaging attempt on seqtools[2] went quite smoothly but
surely needs some polishing - most probably also dynamic linking against
a common library. Before I'll spent additional time cycles I'd like to
know your opinion whether we should simply replace the orphaned belvu
and dotter versions from the acedb package or if not how we should
proceed otherwise.
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] http://www.sanger.ac.uk/science/tools/seqtools
[2] https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-med/seqtools.git
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: