Bug#1068401: Pending uplad (Was: Bug#1068401: ltrsift dependencies unsatisfiable on 32-bit non-i386 architectures.)
Hi Sascha, Am Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 10:33:16PM +0200 schrieb Sascha Steinbiss: > Interesting to see that there is no ltrsift-examples package indeed. But > I must have had my reasons back then... > > Anyway, to be honest I don't see much long-term future for LTRsift. I am > actually surprised to see it still in Debian and not dropped out of > testing as it depends on GTK2, which I assumed was gone from Debian > already [0, 1]. I guess GTK2 will not be supported after the next release any more (at best). As long as no RC bugs are filed against packages depending from it, it seems fine to keep these in a clean shape. > I'd be happy with introducing an examples package but I don't think > there is going to be a usable autopkgtest to gain, sorry. Thanks for the clarification. I'll leave this absolutely to you. Given your explanation I do not think it is worth a detour via new queue. Thus I reverted my change to introduce the examples package. I'll leave you the final decision and upload (where you can drop the "Team upload" in changelog to silence lintian). > I have pushed some changes and can upload soon. Thanks a lot Andreas. > [0] Apparently not, but it's dead upstream: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=947713 > [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=967603 -- https://fam-tille.de
Bug#1068401: Pending uplad (Was: Bug#1068401: ltrsift dependencies unsatisfiable on 32-bit non-i386 architectures.)
Hi Andreas, after routine-update dh_missing failed due to compat level 13 which defaults to fail if some files are not installed. Yep, encountered that in other places as well when updating a few (old!) things. This made me aware that upstream in principle installs a test suite we could use for an autopkgtest. I also realised that you once added debian/ltrsift-examples.examples - so you probably had such a package in mind. Well, upstream is me ;) At least the original upstream, I don't think anyone at my former organization has adopted it in the meantime and I do not have the time to still care for it. But... since LTRsift is a purely graphical tool, there is no automated test suite I know of. The files in samqqple_data are basically just quickstart examples for the accompanying paper to provide a realistic data set to preprocess, manually load and do first clicky analysis steps with, I think. Since I have no idea what reasons you had not to use this file I'll leave the final decision to you. Interesting to see that there is no ltrsift-examples package indeed. But I must have had my reasons back then... Anyway, to be honest I don't see much long-term future for LTRsift. I am actually surprised to see it still in Debian and not dropped out of testing as it depends on GTK2, which I assumed was gone from Debian already [0, 1]. I'd be happy with introducing an examples package but I don't think there is going to be a usable autopkgtest to gain, sorry. (Please note: Somehow a copy of ltrsift_code ends up in the examples dir - I did not yet investigated why this is happening. Before I have no clear picture about your intentions I'll left this for later investigation.) That is a result of lines 62-65 in the Makefile, which make sure that there is a copy of the executable in that directory, for the paper reviewer's convenience I think (same as why we have the the static build). I think this can be safely patched out as the prepare_encseqs script in the sample_data directory also tries to run ltrsift_encode from the $PATH. ltrsift_encode, BTW, is just a script that prepares the input data and is actually just a wrapper around another tool from GenomeTools, which we wanted to have in here for convenience. I have pushed some changes and can upload soon. Cheers Sascha [0] Apparently not, but it's dead upstream: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=947713 [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=967603 OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Processed: Pending uplad (Was: Bug#1068401: ltrsift dependencies unsatisfiable on 32-bit non-i386 architectures.)
Processing control commands: > tags -1 pending Bug #1068401 [ltrsift] ltrsift dependencies unsatisfiable on 32-bit non-i386 architectures. Added tag(s) pending. -- 1068401: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1068401 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1068401: Pending uplad (Was: Bug#1068401: ltrsift dependencies unsatisfiable on 32-bit non-i386 architectures.)
Control: tags -1 pending thanks Hi Sascha, after routine-update dh_missing failed due to compat level 13 which defaults to fail if some files are not installed. This made me aware that upstream in principle installs a test suite we could use for an autopkgtest. I also realised that you once added debian/ltrsift-examples.examples - so you probably had such a package in mind. Since I have no idea what reasons you had not to use this file I'll leave the final decision to you. (Please note: Somehow a copy of ltrsift_code ends up in the examples dir - I did not yet investigated why this is happening. Before I have no clear picture about your intentions I'll left this for later investigation.) Kind regards Andreas. -- https://fam-tille.de
Bug#1068401: ltrsift dependencies unsatisfiable on 32-bit non-i386 architectures.
Package: ltrsift Version: 1.0.2-9 Severity: grave User: debian-...@lists.debian.org Usertag: time-t After being rebuilt for the time64 transition, ltrsift depends on both libgenometools0 and libgenometools0t64. As a result it is uninstallable on architectures that are undergoing the time64 transition (armel, armhf and some debian-ports architectures). Ubuntu seem to have already fixed this. https://launchpadlibrarian.net/720967127/ltrsift_1.0.2-9build5_1.0.2-9ubuntu1.diff.gz