Re: New version of muscle with changed options compared to previous versions [muscle_5.1-1_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable]

Hi, On 2022-01-17 20:43, Andreas Tille wrote: > Am Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 05:45:49PM +0200 schrieb Andrius Merkys: >> I consider myself a muscle user, albeit mostly for teaching. Integration >> with biopython is quite important aspect to me as well. >> >> Although stability is a desired quality, alg

Re: New version of muscle with changed options compared to previous versions [muscle_5.1-1_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable]

Hi, Am Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 05:45:49PM +0200 schrieb Andrius Merkys: > I consider myself a muscle user, albeit mostly for teaching. Integration > with biopython is quite important aspect to me as well. > > Although stability is a desired quality, algorithm improvement is > probably more important

Re: New version of muscle with changed options compared to previous versions [muscle_5.1-1_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable]

Hi, On 2022-01-17 16:55, Andreas Tille wrote: > I've just realised there is a new version of muscle (now on Github) > which has not only a changed algorithm but also changed command line > options (I had to adapt autopkgtest which is also a bit weak - some > educated person should check the result

New version of muscle with changed options compared to previous versions [muscle_5.1-1_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable]

Hi, I've just realised there is a new version of muscle (now on Github) which has not only a changed algorithm but also changed command line options (I had to adapt autopkgtest which is also a bit weak - some educated person should check the result and drop a proper md5sum for the expected result)