Andreas Tille wrote: > > Yes. I guessed that all this stuff is not trivial [...]
Like Hubert said, it can be entirely trivial or it may be hell. > Well, I personally will spent my time with problems I see chances > to be able to add real value. That's a sane strategy. I looked more carefully at upstream's page today, and figured out the following: BioCocoa is a framework, i.e. a shared library in GNUstep's parlance. It is intended to be used by applications, like these: http://www.bioinformatics.org/biococoa/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Main.Applications The trunk builds (cd to the GNUstep dir first and do gs_make), but the result is, not very surprising, a library. Maybe BioCocoa.app is not yet adopted to the new API. 1.7 looks like a mess to me. I don't think that everything is in place. There is another library, SXML, against which the app should be linked. This library is installed in binary form (ugh!) in the svn tree. The current Debian package contains only an app, which is more or less a proof of concept. If it is useful as a conversion tool between all those (entirely unknown to me) formats, I guess it would be OK to maintain it as long as it is not buggy. Either way, the prospective maintainer has to contact upstream to ask them what their plans are. > Ahh, you mean also 1.7 is not buildable? Yes; a slight correction: 2.0 is buildable, 1.7 is not. > Would you mind sending a qualified bug report against the relevant > package to keep a record of this problem. That's #463416, I hope that Hubert will upload a fixed package soon. (As a side note -- I tried your suggestion to delete the nameserver database and it worked, but according to upstream that was very wrong for reasons I had not anticipated.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
