On 20.10.17 17:10, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 04:23:37PM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote: >>> I started to check the list of external packages of possibly interesting >>> packages and stumbled upon blixem which is part of seqtools[1]. The >>> source also contains dotter and belvu and seems to be actively >>> maintained. However, the packages acedb-other-belvu and >>> acedb-other-dotter from source acedb (which is orphaned upstream) >>> contain the same executable names and it seems the programs are doing >>> the same. My packaging attempt on seqtools[2] went quite smoothly but >>> surely needs some polishing - most probably also dynamic linking against >>> a common library. Before I'll spent additional time cycles I'd like to >>> know your opinion whether we should simply replace the orphaned belvu >>> and dotter versions from the acedb package or if not how we should >>> proceed otherwise. >>> >>> Kind regards >>> >>> Andreas. >>> >>> [1] http://www.sanger.ac.uk/science/tools/seqtools >>> [2] https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-med/seqtools.git >> Looks good to me. How about proposing that as a MoM project? >> I'd volunteer as a mentor. > The problem is not the packaging itself. The question is whether > those equally named tools can be replaced or not.
>From what I read - yes. Steffen