On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 14:06, Andreas Tille <ti...@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi Carnė,
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:59:45PM +0000, Carnė Draug wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 14:06, Andreas Tille <ti...@debian.org> wrote:
> > > This is what I've though about: Removing the files from bioperl-run
> > > (which would be 1.7.2-5 then)
> >
> > Upstream has released BioPerl-Run 1.7.3 which fixes this conflict
> > issue.  If someone could prepare that release that would be nice.
> Thanks a lot for this hint.
> > Like BioPerl 1.7.3, this new release of BioPerl-Run removed multiple
> > modules and so, probably not suitable for migration to Buster during
> > this transition freeze period.
> This is demonstrated very well here:
>     https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/bioperl
> Lots of packages (not only bioperl-run) are broken by the new version.

Well, all those regressions are because they can't install bioperl
which is their dependency.  There is no issue on themselves or in
upstream bioperl.  The issue is that Debian's bioperl claims to have
recommend dependency on bioperl-run which does not actually exist in
upstream anymore.

> Thus I admit I see no real profit in upgrading bioperl-run at this
> release stage.  We could upload to experimental (Carnė, I'm explicitly
> encouraging you to do so if you have some interest in it).  I for
> myself have currently more important things on my desk since this
> becomes important for my only after Buster release.

I'm not interested on bioperl-run either.  But can you remove the
current bioperl from sid which is causing all those issues on the
other packages?

Thank you

Reply via email to