Hi Kevin,
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 12:52:54PM +1000, Kevin Murray wrote:
>
> There were many complex merge conflicts between master and upstream. It was
> actually a lot easier to resolve than I expected. It's now ready for review.
Hmmm, some time has passed - sorry for the delay.
> However, it would be great if someone could take a close look at the package,
> particularly to ensure that the source is exactly what upstream provides (I've
> tried to check this with git, and I think I got it right, but more experienced
> eyes may differ).
I'm just cloning your work and will report in a separate mail.
> > > Shall we start with a "simple" libseqan2-dev package with the latest
> > > upstream
> > > version (2.2.0)? I'll see if I can build on Michael's work in the seqan2
> > > package.
> >
> > Yes, please keep it as simple as possible (but not simpler :-P ).
> >
>
> Working on this now. There are already a couple of errors, so we'll see how I
> go. I'll try to push early and often, so don't assume that the repo is in a
> working state :).
I have prepared a package inside the old Git repository[1]. It does not
build any tools any more (I even stripped these from upstream source
since it simplifies rewriting the d/copyright file). It builds a single
binary package seqan-dev. I verified that the following packages build
flawlessly against it:
bowtie
dindel
flexbar (2.50 as in unstable)
tophat
Since this test worked well I do not intend to go via experimental but
upload straight to unstable. Do you know any other Build-Dependencies
that might need checking?
[1] https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-med/seqan.git
--
http://fam-tille.de
