Hi Olivier, I'm having a look at the package now. I've pushed some changes to SVN already - I hope you don't mind. To explain...
I don't think you need to repack the source in this case. The guidelines say to rename the tarball file, but not to change the contents unless there is a pressing reason to do so. I've tweaked the rules file to work with the pristine source. Do we really need all boost libs installed to build and run correctly? It might be worth looking which are really needed. I think I need to do this in any case as libboost-all doesn't exist on Ubuntu Lucid. I don't think we can get away with having this package conflict with blast2. Though legacy_blast.pl handles some issues, there will be many people who have old scripts that rely on old BLAST but also want BLAST+. I considered using dpkg-divert to push rpsblast to rpsblast.old but I don't think adding a package should modify an existing one like this. The alternatives system might be appropriate but probably confusing to most users in this case. The solution used previously on BL is to have the newer rpsblast renamed rpsblast+, so I've done this for your package for now. What do you think? Cheers, TIM On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 15:30 -0400, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > Olivier Sallou <olivier.sal...@irisa.fr> writes: > > > Would you mind having a look ? It is in svn at ncbi-blast-plus > > I'll be happy to, but probably won't have time until this weekend at the > very soonest. > > -- > Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) > http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/?a...@monk.mit.edu > > -- To Err is human. To Arrr is Pirate! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1304668725.30708.431.camel@barsukas
