Re: libcifpp transition
Hi Maarten,
On 2022-01-31 15:13, Maarten L. Hekkelman wrote:
> Okay, finally had time to work on this.
>
> I patched the libcifpp many times but I now feel confident it should
> work. It builds on an experimental box (with i386 to make things more
> difficult). When I install the packages from this new patch (v2.0.4-6) I
> can build all the dependencies as well.
Great!
> Op 24-01-2022 om 12:46 schreef Andrius Merkys:
>>>> In file included from src/cif2pdb.cpp:28:
>>>> src/cif-tools.hpp:34:10: fatal error: cif++/Config.hpp: No such file or
>>>> directory
>>>> 34 | #include "cif++/Config.hpp"
>>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> The Config file was no longer needed thanks to the switch to cmake. The
>>> API should be roughly the same.
>
> As suggested by other, I opted to put a stub file in the debian package.
> That was the easiest thing to do.
OK.
> The page for the auto-package mentions a conflict with the also updated
> libpdb-redo. Is this going to work?
This is purely informational. It says you probably should not attempt
transitioning libcifpp and libpdb-redo at the same time.
> Anyway, now someone needs to file that bug to ask for a time slot. Who
> is supposed to do that? Is that me? Or does anyone else volunteer?
It would be great if you could do that. You may use my recent openmm
transition bug report [1] as a template. What is important in libcifpp
case is to tell that you are planning to patch the new libcifpp to make
it backwards-compatible with the old libcifpp.
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1004063
Best wishes,
Andrius
Reply to: