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

Re: Please review ncbi-vdb

Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> writes:

> I managed the packaging now at the state where it builds binary packages
> that are technically basically OK from a Debian point of view (one RPATH
> issue left).  Aaron, I would love if you could give it a review with
> your specialist hat on.

Great, thanks!  I'll review the result when I get a chance.

> I have no idea whether it makes sense to split up the libraries.

Don't worry, it definitely does -- I anticipate it will sooner or later
be common, if not typical, to need only libncbi-vdb.

> Please also check whether we should keep the Architecture restriction
> to certain architectures or whether cmake now enables us to simply use
> "any".

Last I checked, the CMake setup had some architecture-specific logic
that would call for not only keeping but tightening the restriction, by
dropping i386.  We could perhaps attempt to reinstate i386 support, but
I'm not sure it's worth the effort nowadays.

> I'd really welcome some sensible autopkgtest which could prevent me
> making mistakes in future.

I've found sra-toolkit's to be a fairly effective stand-in, but a
dedicated autopkgtest certainly wouldn't hurt.

> PS: Please note that I'm on vacation next week and will not do anything
>     on this package in the next 10 days.

Enjoy your vacation!

Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org)
http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/?amu@monk.mit.edu

Reply to: