Tim Booth <ava...@fastmail.fm> writes: > 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...
Thanks for getting the review process started! I'll give more feedback once I've had time to take a closer look at the packaging, but in the meantime here's my take on the points you've raised. > 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. Indeed; while there's no need for the convenience copies of zlib, bzlib, or libpcre, their presence poses no legal complications, so it should suffice to document them in debian/copyright. For that matter, there's also no need to spell out "-plus." > Do we really need all boost libs installed to build and run correctly? No, libboost-test-dev should suffice, and even then only if you want to build (and presumably run) the test suite. I also see no need for build dependencies or explicit runtime dependencies on shared libraries. > I don't think we can get away with having this package conflict with > blast2. Right, coexistence would be better, and I like the renaming idea. That said, I would consider alternatives and diversions to be legitimate possibilities as well; likewise for shipping an additional package that just arranges by whatever means for rpsblast et al. to run BLAST+ binaries. -- 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 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/udlsjsrwuul....@dr-wily.mit.edu