Re: What flavour of dindel to we want to provide?
On 16 July 2018 at 10:30, Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm in the process of checking all our packages that were not uploaded
> since a long time for updates, changes in home page wrongly directed
> watch files and upload these with VCS fields pointing to Salsa. Dindel
> was previously maintained at some Google page which vanished and was
> moved to Gitlab[1]. Upstream seems to be dead, the only content of the
> Gitlab repository is just the download tarball.
>
> I've found a fork dindel-tgi which is described as follows:
>
> This fork currently contains a patch to allow sequence data that
> includes the 0x800 flag (supplementary alignment) from newer versions of
> the SAM specification. It also removes the included copy of Boost and
> adds samtools-0.1.19 as a submodule.
>
> This fork had some activity at lest until about 3 years ago (original
> dindel has not seen any commit longer ago). My question is now: Would
> it make sense to replace dindel by the fork and if yes should we simply
> change the code base to dindel-tgi (using Git from dindel and continue
> as if it would be a new version) or should we create a new package
> dindel-tgi maintain these competing (conflicting???) packages for a
> while.
>
> Any opinions?
>
> Kind regards
>
> Andreas.
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/genome-vendor/dindel
> [2] https://github.com/genome/dindel-tgi
Is there any reason why the fork maintainers did not took over the
original tindel project? A fork would usually means that the original
will be continued but it doesn't look like this is the case.
If upstream transferred the project, this would solve the problem for
us and also make it simpler for users.
David
Reply to: