Re: Should we package BioConductor TFBSTools? [Was [libtfbs-perl] 04/08: Add upstream's notice of deprecation to the package's description.]
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Should we package BioConductor TFBSTools? [Was [libtfbs-perl] 04/08: Add upstream's notice of deprecation to the package's description.]
- From: Andreas Tille <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 13:04:03 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
I stumbled upon this old mail. While nobody has answered so far I'd
like to give some update.
On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 02:27:51PM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote:
> On 21.10.17 10:11, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Le Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 08:08:49AM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> >> when reading this commit log: Should we package Bioconductor TFBSTools?
> >> This would need at least a hand full of Bioconductor depencencies but
> >> usually it is quite straightforward and can be easily done via
> >> dh-make-R --team med --test run-unit-test
> >> plus editing d/copyright a bit.
This now boils down to simply
which gives you a set of Git repositories containing the Debian
packaging of the package and all its missing dependencies. By using the
script itp_from_debian_dir it prepares a text for your ITP bug. I'm
currently testing this script and used it as another example - so you
can expect the packaging in the new queue in a couple of days. The
said scripts are in the latest dh-r package.
Attention: Due to bug #897026 I have pinned debhelper to version 11.1.6.
The script fails (unfortunately silently) with any later released