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

Re: Another issue in test suite of new version of bioperl.

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 07:02, Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi Carnė,
> I've put the other uploaders in CC and would like them to comment, thank
> you.
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 04:36:10PM +0000, Carnė Draug wrote:
> > These are large changes
> > and don't seem acceptable during transition freeze.  There's been
> > almost no bug fix on it (and the few ones are simple to backport) so
> > the migration effectively just removes modules from Debian that people
> > may still be using.
> >
> > But as an actual user of BioPerl, I would prefer the migration because
> > of the lesser dependencies.  Currently, installing bioperl in Debian
> > brings with it a crapload of dependencies.
> Would you volunteer to co-maintain the package inside Debian.  Please
> note:  I *never* used BioPerl (except in an extremely small example for
> a colleague several years ago), I'm neither a Perl programmer nor a
> biologist / bioinformatican.  Looks like I'm quite badly qualified for
> maintaining that package but its like with so many (too many??) other
> Debian Med packages I also do not use:  I'm just doing it since nobody
> else is doing it otherwise.  In close to all cases it is sensible to
> upgrade Software with micro version changes - in this case it was wrong.
> For me the most reasonable thing would be now if you put your name
> instead of mine into the Uploaders field (and other non-active uploaders
> remove their IDs to not have fake metadata on this package).  My goal
> general goal for Debian Med package is to gather *competent* people to
> do a sensible job on the packages (thus I'm probably the worst choice
> here and you are way better).  Would you volunteer to take over?
> Whatever you decide for the migration of 1.7.4 I'm fine with it.

Sure, I can take over maintenance of this bioperl package.  I will
prepare a package for the newer versions but the consensus is that
they shouldn't migrate to testing and that seems like a good decision
to me too.


Reply to: