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

Re: RFP for bioperl's Bio-EUtilities



On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 16:00:11 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:

> > PET doesn't understand version=4 in d/watch, so for teams using PET,
> > sticking to (2 or) 3 is useful. Otherwise PET will never find any
> > newer upstream releases and just write a warning in the respective
> > column.
> Is there any technical reason for ignoring 4 or is the adaption just not
> yet done?  

The latter for sure, and I don't know if the former as well.
(I have no idea how easy it would be to add the new features; but
since PET (python) basically duplicates uscan (perl)'s parsing of
d/watch, it might be some work.)

And PET is slightly under-maintained :/

> I'm asking since I have simply set those watch files I have
> checked recently to version=4 simply as a marker that I have dealt with
> it allowing me to grep for "version=[23]" when seeking for watch files
> that potentially needs checking.

I'd only set it to 4 if I needed some of the new features, which
hasn't happened so far.


Cheers,
gregor

-- 
 .''`.  https://info.comodo.priv.at/ - Debian Developer https://www.debian.org
 : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D  85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06
 `. `'  Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-   NP: The Who: Squeeze Box

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature


Reply to: