On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 01:47:12PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Hi Andreas and Steffen, > > Taking a new upstream release as an opportunity, I have made a lot of > modifications to the mummer package. The current version in Debian relies > heavily on patches that are not documented and not always suitable for > upstream.
We should reduce the patches which are not suitable for upstream to a bare minimum which is really needed. > I converted the pacakge from CDBS to debhelper in order to be able to > drop most of the patches. Nice to see that debhelper 7 also enables quite compact rules files. (I should have RTFMed since a long time ...) > The first question I would like to ask is the > function of the changes made to the C++ sources of the ???annotate???. > > http://patch-tracking.debian.net/patch/series/view/mummer/3.20-3/01sm_src_tigr.diff See http://lists.debian.org/debian-med/2007/11/msg00045.html > I am not sure if that was the purpose, but I noticed that ???annotate??? was > renamed ???mummer-annotate???, which makes us compliant with the Artistic > license > under which it is released. The reason was not the license but a name space polution. Imagemagick has a tool called annotate. We should teach upstream not to use generic names! > But in addition some C shell programs were replaced > by Bourne shell counterparts, without being renamed. What would you recommend? > Drop the changes and ship the C shell versions, or forward the Bourne versions > upstream and ask permission for using them? I would try to avoid artificial C shell dependency. If teaching upstream is no option I would vote for a rename. But this is just my personal opinion and I would not heavily insist on it. So feel free to decide what might be the best option. Thanks for working on this Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org