Re: ncbi-igblast - compiles so much redundant general NCBI bits - wrong source tree?

Andreas Tille writes: > This hint enabled me to finally build the package. Unfortunately there Glad to hear it! > are lots of lintian errors[1]. I think I'll be able to deal with the > RUNPATH issues (if I would have time which is not the case the next > three days). Please try adding --with

Re: ncbi-igblast - compiles so much redundant general NCBI bits - wrong source tree?

Hi Aaron, Am Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 04:13:54PM -0400 schrieb Aaron M. Ucko: > Andreas Tille writes: > > > ERR [127] -- [util/lmdb] lmdb_test.sh 1 (unparsable timing stats) > > Please try declaring a build dependency on time. > > FTR, my previous suggestion (switching from --with-dll to --wi

Re: ncbi-igblast - compiles so much redundant general NCBI bits - wrong source tree?

Andreas Tille writes: > ERR [127] -- [util/lmdb] lmdb_test.sh 1 (unparsable timing stats) Please try declaring a build dependency on time. FTR, my previous suggestion (switching from --with-dll to --without-dll) addressed an unrelated concern Steffen had raised, namely using a very similar

Re: ncbi-igblast - compiles so much redundant general NCBI bits - wrong source tree?

Hi Aaron, Am Thu, May 07, 2020 at 10:36:55AM -0400 schrieb Aaron M. Ucko: > Steffen Möller writes: > > > This ftp://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/blast/executables/igblast/release/1.15.0/ is > > where I got the source tree. It is not the case that igblast also occurs > > elsewhere, say together with the regu

Re: ncbi-igblast - compiles so much redundant general NCBI bits - wrong source tree?

Steffen Möller writes: > This ftp://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/blast/executables/igblast/release/1.15.0/ is > where I got the source tree. It is not the case that igblast also occurs > elsewhere, say together with the regular NCBI tools, and I am not aware > of it. ncbi-blast+ and ncbi-igblast are both of

Re: ncbi-igblast - compiles so much redundant general NCBI bits - wrong source tree?

Hi Steffen, On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 07:58:56PM +0100, Steffen Möller wrote: > igblast is something I want to see added to our distribution. It seems > to compile, is also (almost) tests just fine. My concern is that there > is so much shipping with it that has nothing to with immunoglobulins: It >

ncbi-igblast - compiles so much redundant general NCBI bits - wrong source tree?

Hello, igblast is something I want to see added to our distribution. It seems to compile, is also (almost) tests just fine. My concern is that there is so much shipping with it that has nothing to with immunoglobulins: It is alone 138 *.so files and 50 executables, of which only one is called "ig