Dear Andreas and Debmed team, We have now released our V3 of the Bio++ libraries (tag v3.0.0 upstream). I could do a uscan from the salsa repository, but I could not get any further. It is many years since I packaged the previous version of the libraries, and my notes are probably completely outdated. May I ask for your assistance? If someone shows me how to do it for the libbpp-core library, I can try to do the other ones.
I sincerely apologize for my helplessness! Best regards, Julien. On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 7:59 AM Julien Y. Dutheil <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Andreas, > > thank you very much for the feedback. One more question then: can I keep > the old package name and still provide libraries named libpp-core3, > libbpp-seq3, etc, or should I remove the interface version from the library > names as well (this is possible but rather cumbersome from our side, since > we have used those new names for several years now, to avoid conflicts > while the old versions were still in use)? > > Best regards, > > Julien. > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 10:35 PM Andreas Tille <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Julien, >> >> Am Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 08:57:14PM +0100 schrieb Julien Y. Dutheil: >> > Dear Deb-Med, >> > >> > After many years, we are finally ready to release the V3.00 of the Bio++ >> > libraries (libbpp-core, libbpp-seq, libbpp-phyl, libbpp-popgen, >> > libbpp-seq-omics, libbpp-phyl-omics, libbpp-qt, libbpp-raa). This new >> > version introduces a new interface, not backward-compatible (although >> some >> > legacy classes have been kept to ease the transition). Therefore, we >> have >> > renamed the libraries as libbpp-core3, libbpp-seq3, etc. >> > It has been a long time since I dived into Debian packaging, but I >> expect >> > that releasing this new version by tagging our master branch will >> trigger >> > some issues for the Debian packaging, since this should be new Debian >> > packages, not just updates of the existing ones, right? >> >> I admit I would prefer to keep the same source package name and bump >> SOVERSION of the binary package. The only reason change the source >> package name would be that both (old an new) versions should be kept >> both inside Debian. Given the relatively low user base I do not >> consider it a good idea to tackle the according maintenance burden. >> >> > Before we create such a mess, are there any recommendations on how we >> > should proceed? My gut feeling is that we should get rid of the old ones >> > and make some brand new packages for this new version, unless there is a >> > simpler way? (The compilation chain is the same as before, no change >> from >> > that side apart from upgrading the various cmake files.) >> >> The Debian Med team is fine with wirking on the Dabien packages and I >> would strongly prefer to keep the old source package names and the >> Git repository where these are mentioned. >> >> Kind regards and thank you for working on the upstream code and for >> pinging here >> Andreas. >> >> -- >> https://fam-tille.de >> > > -- Prof. Dr. Julien Y. Dutheil 0 (+49) 4522 763 484 Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology Molecular Systems Evolution Department of Theoretical Biology Plön -- GERMANY
