On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Andreas Tille <andr...@an3as.eu> wrote:
> 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. > > Hi Andreas, I am going to attack point 2. The symlinks are only needed if we supporting multiple bamtools versions in Debian. I will simply rename the binary file from bamtools-<version> to bamtools. Best -Dominique
