Re: Please review ncbi-vdb

Andreas Tille writes: > If you think the package structure is OK I might upload to new. > Any other fine tuning that might be needed could be done in some > source-only upload. Good point, but I did already find two other things that would be best to fix before any upload: - dpkg-source errors

Re: Please review ncbi-vdb

Hi Aaron, Am Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 10:48:29PM -0500 schrieb Aaron M. Ucko: > Andreas Tille writes: > > > I managed the packaging now at the state where it builds binary packages > > that are technically basically OK from a Debian point of view (one RPATH > > issue left). Aaron, I would love if

Re: libzstd should not be maintained by Debian Med team - could some core team please take over (Was: libzstd 1.5.2 in Debian)

Hi Peter, Am Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 07:40:26PM +0200 schrieb Peter Pentchev: > > there was a (private) request to upgrade libzstd to latest 1.5.2. > > > > I'd like to repeat that I'm really convinced that libzstd should *not* > > be maintained in the Debian Med team but rather some core team in >

Re: Advice needed: building new gatk-bwamem-jni against another version of bwa

Hi Andrius, Thanks for looking at my issue. Le 14/03/2022 à 06:03, Andrius Merkys a écrit : Hi Pierre, On 2022-03-13 16:35, Pierre Gruet wrote: My proposal would be to design a multiple upstream tarball for gatk-bwamem-jni: original one + the sources at the tip of the Apache2 branch of bwa.