Hi Kevin, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 12:52:54PM +1000, Kevin Murray wrote: > > There were many complex merge conflicts between master and upstream. It was > actually a lot easier to resolve than I expected. It's now ready for review.
Hmmm, some time has passed - sorry for the delay. > However, it would be great if someone could take a close look at the package, > particularly to ensure that the source is exactly what upstream provides (I've > tried to check this with git, and I think I got it right, but more experienced > eyes may differ). I'm just cloning your work and will report in a separate mail. > > > Shall we start with a "simple" libseqan2-dev package with the latest > > > upstream > > > version (2.2.0)? I'll see if I can build on Michael's work in the seqan2 > > > package. > > > > Yes, please keep it as simple as possible (but not simpler :-P ). > > > > Working on this now. There are already a couple of errors, so we'll see how I > go. I'll try to push early and often, so don't assume that the repo is in a > working state :). I have prepared a package inside the old Git repository[1]. It does not build any tools any more (I even stripped these from upstream source since it simplifies rewriting the d/copyright file). It builds a single binary package seqan-dev. I verified that the following packages build flawlessly against it: bowtie dindel flexbar (2.50 as in unstable) tophat Since this test worked well I do not intend to go via experimental but upload straight to unstable. Do you know any other Build-Dependencies that might need checking? [1] https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-med/seqan.git -- http://fam-tille.de