In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Dear all,
Clustal W and Clustal X are the most popular software for multiple
alignment of biological sequences. Their source package was NMUed during
the lesstif transition, but not built on enough architectures, and was
therefore removed from testing.
Dear all,
Clustal W and Clustal X are the most popular software for multiple
alignment of biological sequences. Their source package was NMUed during
the lesstif transition, but not built on enough architectures, and was
therefore removed from testing.
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Charles Plessy]
Clustal W and Clustal X are the most popular software for multiple
alignment of biological sequences. Their source package was NMUed during
the lesstif transition, but not built on enough architectures, and was
therefore removed
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about convincing the upstream developers to change the license to
one of the free software licenses? It would solve the problem for
good.
Judging from the mail recorded in its copyright file, this isn't likely
to happen.
Regards, Frank
--
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 02:38:49PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
[...]
Just read the mails of these both threads and learn why we have
not yet autobuilders for non-free. IMHO the main issue is that
nobody really _did_ it.
There are two issues at hand
[Charles Plessy]
Clustal W and Clustal X are the most popular software for multiple
alignment of biological sequences. Their source package was NMUed during
the lesstif transition, but not built on enough architectures, and was
therefore removed from testing.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
Ah, the pain with no autobuilders for non-free packages.
Exactly.
You will
have to find a developer with access to all of the architectures ia64,
mips, mipsel and s390 (m68k is ignored), and get them to build
binaries of the package.
In
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Andreas Tille wrote:
When I maintained this package I tried and I guess my successors tried
as well. Another solution was suggested nearly 5 years ago
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/11/msg01472.html
and if I remember also at other occurences but the search
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 02:38:49PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Andreas Tille wrote:
When I maintained this package I tried and I guess my successors tried
as well. Another solution was suggested nearly 5 years ago
Le Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 02:30:59PM +0200, Frank Küster a écrit :
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about convincing the upstream developers to change the license to
one of the free software licenses? It would solve the problem for
good.
Judging from the mail recorded
10 matches
Mail list logo