Hi everyone, Thanks for drawing my attention to this!
I'll have a more in-depth look next week, but I'll share my first thoughts.
> I had a look anyway and realised that we have an updated package in > experimental which is using some newer seqan2 version. I wonder whether > this experiment was successfully and can be moved to unstable. If not > we probably should apply the same fix to the branch in experimental > to make sure it keeps on building.Maybe a good question for Enrico, since he's both the one who did the upload and someone with a solid SeqAn background :)
As far as I remember, it worked with the new seqan2 version. We updated all packages that depend on seqan2 for experimental. seqan2-2.5.0 is still on experimental, and upstream also has a new version (2.5.1). Since it needs to be updated anyway, this seems like a good opportunity for me to release 2.5.2 and update the package. I'd imagine it would also be nice to have a new upstream release of lambda-align1/2?
> As a general question: There is lambda-align (featuring the latest > version of the 1.x series), lambda-align2 (featuring the latest version > of the 2.x series) and upstream has also issued lamda-align version 3.> > Do we really need both old versions but not the latest one?I can only imagine the command line usage or output format has changed enough across versions to have pipelines using lambda require a specific version. That's reason enough to keep version 1 i Debian, IMHO -- if there are still popular tools that use haven't migrated yet.
I'll check what the differences are and potentially contact the author. As Sascha mentioned, reproducibility will probably be the main argument for keeping it. Best, Enrico
OpenPGP_0x11EA0A2E8152E701.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
