On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Charles Plessy <[email protected]> wrote: > Le Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 09:09:44AM -0500, Carlos Borroto a écrit : >> >> I just notice that we are only recommending bowtie, but bowtie is >> actually needed by tophat. All the actual mapping is done by bowtie. I >> think we should have bowtie as a dependency of the binary package. I >> have the commits ready for this, should I commit them and add an >> UNRELEASED section to the changelog so we are ready for the next >> upload? > > Hi Carlos, > > in general, do not hesitate to add an UNRELEASED section to the changelog and > then commit changes to the repository. > > About the relation between tophat and bowtie, I indeed hesitated between > Depends and Recommends, and chose Recommends as 1) it is installed by default > anyway and 2) it would allow to install tophat independantly, which might > be useful to some who want to use their own bowtie, or who want to use some > of the helper tools in the tophat package. > > But if you think that Depends is better, go for it ! >
Hi Charles, I see your point but I think Depends is more appropriate. If someone wants to use their own bowtie, I think they could still accomplish that playing with $PATH. I also checked on the TopHat package from Tim Booth at NEBC's PPA[1] and they are using Depends. I guess it would be nice to keep the packages in sync for a future merge. BTW, the NEBC team is doing a very nice work packaging most of the Tools a local install of Galaxy[2] would need. This is exactly what got me interested in Debian packaging. [1]https://launchpad.net/~nebc/+archive/galaxy [2]htt[://galaxyproject.org Regards, Carlos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CABgGhB+PTSszva56Q3A2zM29=gahdfztomdcpy53rsp_gsr...@mail.gmail.com
