Jalview is now patched for Jmol 12.2.4 - which is their latest SVN for 12.2 branch.
On 04/11/2011 11:30, Vincent Fourmond wrote: > > Actually, that isn't the case. If you think in terms of distribution > (say, squeeze, wheezy, I don't know if that actually tells anything to > all of you) :) yes - translation is : wheezy==testing, squeeze is latest stable distribution. (for lurkers, check out this page if you're interested: http://www.debian.org/releases/). > , there may exist only one version of a package. agh - right. I forgot about that. Packages are matched on name, not name+version. > It is possible to duplicate code and have, say, a jmol-12.1 package > and a jmol-12.2 package, but that's a real pain to maintain, and the > Debian Security frowns upon that: two times the same code means > potentially having to fix security issues twice (keep in mind Debian > provides security support for all of its packages). Basically, this is > accepted as a transition to avoid breaking too many things at once, > but very seldom in a durable fashion. hmm. there are situations where this does have to happen. We expect Jalview to enter such a transition phase in a few months, because I will begin cutting up the code into distinct modules, each with their own versioned API. At the same time, we'll maintain the last release branch, backporting patches if possible, until Jalview 3 is stable and we can completely deprecate the 2.X series. I'd almost bet money that people will still use Jalview 2.X for a few years after that, though! > That makes it particularly painfull to package Java stuff, as there > are so many tools that make it easy for a java developer to use a > particular version of a library that in general developers are a > little less careful about API breakages. I don't think that's limited to Java developers ! but that's a story for another list ;) > I don't know what could be a long-term solution. If this time, jmol > underwent heavy refactoring, API breakages are normal. I hope that > won't happen that often for later versions of jmol. Maybe just raising > the awareness there about which interfaces you use would encourage > jmol developers to stabilize them ? I have done, and continued to do this. Furthermore, I'll barrack for a Jmol-apis package to be created (since I want to make an analogous Jalview-apis package too :) ). > Probably you don't use too much of > jmol's internals to make it a pain for jmol developers to keep the > interface you use constant. Think about it: this means that jmol > upgrades for you would be mostly painless, and that also means that > jalview users would have an up-to-date embedded copy of jmol... Don't I know it ! However, since Jmol's architecture is still undergoing massive changes, I don't think we'll see a simple drop-in upgrade path between major versions (ie 12.x transitions) for some time. It was just bad luck that the 12.2 series came out just as you released Jalview's package :) hopefully we can time it better next time. Jim. _______________________________________________ Jalview-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.compbio.dundee.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/jalview-dev
