Hi!
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:04 AM, Charles Plessy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Uploading clustalw (only building clustalw) and clustalx (only
> > building clustalx), both as 1.83-4 will do the job as I can see (and
> > won't cause any problems).
> > There is no problem in not uploading a
Le Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:07:28PM -0300, Nelson A. de Oliveira a écrit :
>
> Uploading clustalw (only building clustalw) and clustalx (only
> building clustalx), both as 1.83-4 will do the job as I can see (and
> won't cause any problems).
> There is no problem in not uploading a new package with
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Charles Plessy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why not only use 1.83-4? It will replace the one already available.
>
> It is a new package, I do not know if it would work… Doesn't it need to
> end by -1? Otherwise, this would be obviously the thing to do.
Up
Le Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 09:47:27PM -0300, Nelson A. de Oliveira a écrit :
>
> Why not only use 1.83-4? It will replace the one already available.
It is a new package, I do not know if it would work… Doesn't it need to
end by -1? Otherwise, this would be obviously the thing to do.
Have a nice day
Hi Charles!
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Charles Plessy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have just one doubt about the process: there are already binary
> > packages for clustalx 1.83 in non-free. Will they be overwritten or will
> > they cause a problem?
>
> Actually, I think that the bes
Le Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:06:46PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
>
> I have just one doubt about the process: there are already binary
> packages for clustalx 1.83 in non-free. Will they be overwritten or will
> they cause a problem?
Hi all,
Actually, I think that the best solution is simply t
Dear all,
The current clustalw package builds the clustalw and clustalx binary
packages. However, their sources have been split upstream. We will
therefore do the same in Debian. In order to update the clustalw
package, we must create a clustalx source package. The latest upstream
release is unred
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
MySQL servers <= ? (what)
3.23.
Uhmm, that's old.
Has MySQL really changed that dramatically that there is no good
chance for an update?
show that there are some real votes (not only installations just drawn in
by med-imaging installations). So
On Thu, February 21, 2008 14:27, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> - Upstream is essentially dead for 4 years now;
>> - CTN only works with MySQL servers <= which are getting obsolete really
>>
>
> MySQL servers <= ? (what)
3.23.
> show that there are some real votes (not only installations just drawn in
>
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
Yes, but this doesn't seem like a high priority issue that is worthy of an
upload on its own, but rather a tweak.
From the single package perspective you are right and I do not
expect you to close any wishlist bug immediately. From a Debian-Med
QA
10 matches
Mail list logo
