Hi,
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:01:04AM -0500, Dominique Belhachemi wrote:
> > Would you consider to create a bamtools-tools (well, this sounds like a
> > stupid name - perhaps only bam-tools or bamtools-utils - whatever might
> > sound intuitive to you) package? For similarity issues I checked samtools
> > which is formally lacking the libsamtools<version> package - but it also
> > does not contain a *.so dynamic library.
> >
> >
> I just added the binary package bamtools. This is what a user would install.
Thanks.
So the last remaining questions are:
1. Can we fix the pristine-tar branch properly (to exclude third_party)
or would it possibly less work to recreate the Git repository (I
personally would not mind about the history of the packaging and I
also admit that I'm not keen on upstream history - so choosing the
solution that creates less work is fine for me)
2. Deal with the dangling symlink by rather using bamtools.links.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121109144335.ga25...@an3as.eu
