Hi Andreas, I added descriptions for these packages (and they are ready for upload):
> librg-blast-parser-perl, librg-utils-perl, > librostlab, librostlab-blast, > libzerg, libzerg-perl, > profisis, rate4site. For libzerg and libzerg-perl, I haven't fixed lintian warning `obsolete-url-in-packaging` yet - probably it should be overrided? Both libraries are available only on code.google.com archive. Regarding pdb2pqr, I couldn't made it work with apbs for now, that's why added more detailed description in readme.test and readme.debian (it seems that current upstream apbs version doesn't produce files which pdb2pqr uses. Probably this should be considered as a bug?). `Reprof` isn't finished yet. There is a problem with second package's build - it ends with error messages and fails. For now I'll add tests for profphd, profphd-utils and profnet and try to fix reprof. 2016-07-02 8:44 GMT+03:00 Andreas Tille <[email protected]>: > Hi Tanya, > > On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 01:50:20AM +0300, merlettaia wrote: > > > > It's optional in debian/control file, and it should be - pdb2pqr works > > without it, and it simply shows warning message. All my tests pass > without > > apbs. Some of pdb2pqr upstream tests won't pass, because they suppose > that > > this optional package is installed and compare output file with expected > > output, which differs when apbs is present or is not (I don't use these > > tests). > > I need to admit that I have no idea how sensible it might be to install > apbs when working with pdb2pqr. I'm personally a big fan or stronger > depencencies (like Recommends instead of Suggests). In this sense we > also should test what we are recommending - so it would be better to > reach a state where our test works as well with apbs. > > > For now installation of apbs is considered by pdb2pqr to be correct if in > > python REPL command "from apbslib import *" doesn't fail with > "ImportError: > > No module named apbslib". For now even when apbs is built with > > -DENABLE_PYTHON=ON flag (as suggested by pdb2pqr) and installed, this > > command still fails. > > > > I'll spend some time on apbs tomorrow and if I'll fail, I'll probably > > continue working on other packages. > > That's fine. May be you add some remarks in README.test with the > outcome of your investigation. > > > > PS: Please let me know what packages from rostlab are ready for upload. > > > > For now I made simple tests are ready for these packages: > > librg-blast-parser-perl, librg-utils-perl, > > librostlab, librostlab-blast, > > libzerg, libzerg-perl, > > profisis, disulfinder, > > rate4site, reprof. > > > > For some of them I haven't wrote correct descriptions\README.test yet. > > There is a simple test in disulfinder with Readme.test, but I wanted to > > check this package if I could improve tests somehow > > OK. I decided to upload disulfinder as is. Its perfectly fine if you > decide to enhance the test later but for the moment I think our users > are served better if we fix the RC bug and upload with a simple test. > > > (and probably do the > > same for profisis and rate4site). All current tests should pass when > > packages are installed correctly. > > Passes for me. :-) > > > I haven't wrote tests for these packages yet: pssh2, profnet, profphd, > > profphd-utils, predictprotein. > > >From my point of view its easier if I upload single packages one by one > rather than a larger set of packages. So if you think while the tests > beeing more simple for the moment but working and functional I tend to > do uploads for now. But I'll leave the final say for the upload to you. > > Kind regards > > Andreas. > > -- > http://fam-tille.de > > -- Best wishes, Tanya.
