Hi Steffen! Disclaimer: I'm a biologist [1] and I performed genome-wide analyses.
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:00:02 +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote: > Steffen Möller schrieb am Dienstag, dem 28. Oktober 2008: >> To summarise things up: the renaming of the executable of plink to >> snplink renders the plink package inferior to a manual installation of >> plink under the proper name. From a *very* quick read of the plink webpage [2], I understand that plink mainly deals with SNPs [3]. Thus I don't see the rename as something inferior, on the contrary it helps better understanding what the binary does [4]. >> What I'll do now unless I hear some objections that I am mentally >> prepared to follow: I'll prepare the new version, add the conflict to >> debian/control to close 503367 (won't fix) and herewith truly >> apologize for all these emails. > > The packages provide different functionality. They should therefore not > conflict. [...] > Tho I think that putty being the more senior one should have the right > of the name and not be forced to rename its binaries. Fully ACK, on both sentences. FWIW, according to [5], plink has been included in PuTTY since version beta 0.50 (released 2000/10/16). The oldest Debian version I could find is 0.57-1 (2005/03/13), which already contains /usr/bin/plink. Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca Footnotes: [1] http://www.unige.ch/irlab [2] http://pngu.mgh.harvard.edu/~purcell/plink/index.shtml [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_nucleotide_polymorphism [4] I agree that for someone not in genetics this is not true [5] http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/changes.html [6] http://snapshot.debian.net/putty
pgpb8a9kMjmnK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
