Re: Role of acedb-other-belvu and acedb-other-dotter versus belvu & dotter from seqtools
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 04:23:37PM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote:
> > 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
>
> Looks good to me. How about proposing that as a MoM project?
> I'd volunteer as a mentor.
The problem is not the packaging itself. The question is whether
those equally named tools can be replaced or not.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: