Re: Finishing ncbi-vdb and sra-sdk
Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org> writes:
> I noticed that another upload does not keep the position of the package
> in the new queue but pulls it down at the end again. :-( BTW, what is
Oops. I've gone ahead with 3.0.0+dfsg2-2 now, then; I'm confident in
those changes and don't want to let the position slip much more.
> your rationale to push the old version 2.11.2+dfsg-5 as well? Wouldn't
> that be overridden by 3.0.0+dfsg2-1?
Not immediately, because they're going to different suites, with 3.x
still targeting experimental for now. The idea is to allow for a
maximally clean transition to having a separate ncbi-vdb-data binary
package in systems running testing or unstable and updated reasonably
often. (Stable will of course be another matter, but still smooth
enough.)
> Thanks for working on this.
No problem.
> Without checking the background I think
> debhelper uses debian/tmp for multiple binary packages and
> debian/pkgname for single binary packages.
Right, though I think that may vary by compatibility level.
> I fail to understand in
> what way the name of that temporary dir might be an issue but I can't
> check in the next two weeks.
debian/rules has some explicit references to debian/tmp, and dh_install
moreover fails in this situation with the package's .install list.
These are formalities that would be quick to address, but there's no
point given that the source package will need to build multiple binary
packages soon anyway.
--
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: