On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Andreas Tille <andr...@an3as.eu> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 10:33:03AM -0500, Dominique Belhachemi wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > Hmmm, I previosely suggested something in this line to Michael but he > insisted that he intended to keep things like upstream is doing it. I > do not really agree to this but finally I'm not a user of this package > nor would I consider myself as the main maintainer of this package. > > I'd suggest to negotiate with Michael that your planed change is > actually the better idea. > > Upstream’s way isn't always good for Debian and the user. The question is basically whether or not we want to start supporting multiple bamtools packages in parallel. Michael, are you planning to do that? -Dominique
