Hello, Anthony Boureux wrote: > Hi, > thanks, > So, I will submit a RFP bug and do the package. ITP - since you have "interest to pack".
> But I have one more question : > I thought to name the package as libbio-das-proserver-perl, as a lot of > perl library. But Bio::Das::ProServer, as wrote in the name, is a > server, so do you think it will be better to call it : > bio-das-proserver-perl or even bio-das-proserver. However, I will keep > libbio-das-perl for Bio::Das, libbio-das-lite-perl for Bio::Das::Lite > (when it will be possible to package) because there are client library. Hm. Is there any chance to see a bio-das-proserver implemented in anything else but Perl? If not, then bio-das-proserver is the right name for it. I share your opinion on libbio-das-perl and libbio-das-lite-perl. Thanks! Steffen > > Anthony. > > Steffen Moeller a écrit : >> Anthony Boureux wrote: >> >> [...] >>> So, my questions for the packaging team (I not really an expert with the >>> debian policy) : >>> Do you think I can split the package libbio-das-proserver, even if >>> sub-package have less than 5 files ? >> Yes, this is perfectly doable. I just did one which only has a single >> symbolic link :) >> >>> and if a sub-package is broken (libbio-das-proserver-proxysource-perl) >>> because it can't be installed at this time without >>> libparallel-useragent-perl. >>> I can also remove this sub-package from the building process and wait >>> until an upstream solution ? >> Yes, this is just fine, too. >> >> Steffen >> >> > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
