Hello,
Anthony Boureux wrote:
> Hi,
> thanks,
> So, I will submit a RFP bug and do the package.
ITP - since you have "interest to pack".
> But I have one more question :
> I thought to name the package as libbio-das-proserver-perl, as a lot of
> perl library. But Bio::Das::ProServer, as wrote in
Hi Anthony,
On 28 Aug 2009, at 16:41, Anthony Boureux wrote:
This and many other dependencies (e.g. the Ensembl API, BioPerl)
are completely optional, and so I think the best solution would be
to make ProServer configurable when building the Makefile and have
certain optional parts turned
Hi,
thanks,
So, I will submit a RFP bug and do the package.
But I have one more question :
I thought to name the package as libbio-das-proserver-perl, as a lot of
perl library. But Bio::Das::ProServer, as wrote in the name, is a
server, so do you think it will be better to call it :
bio-das-pro
Anthony Boureux wrote:
[...]
>
> So, my questions for the packaging team (I not really an expert with the
> debian policy) :
> Do you think I can split the package libbio-das-proserver, even if
> sub-package have less than 5 files ?
Yes, this is perfectly doable. I just did one which only has a s
Hello,
Thank you very much for your answer and your reactivity to all of you.
I answered to Andy (inside the mail) and I have some questions for the
debian-med team at the end of this (long) mail.
Andy Jenkinson a écrit :
Hi all,
ProServer is a DAS server library, and the dependency on
Bio::
5 matches
Mail list logo
