Hi, Andreas,
On السبت 9 أيار 2015 15:13, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi Afif,
Yes, I need help. I've done some more reading and the situation is that:
- upstream uses an apparently modified version of the random number
generator mt19937ar [1]
- The developers of mt19937ar have a whole suite of implementations
[2-3], and only some of them appear to be in Debian.
- mt19937ar is apparently not one of those versions that are in
debian, but given that it is modified anyway, I'm not sure what
should be done.
Should I just leave the included copy in there?
This is the kind of questions that could be thrown at the
debian-ment...@lists.debian.org list. On the other hand for the moment
we might go with the changed code copy. Please document your research
results (= the text above) in a file debian/README.source. This will
save other people some work once somebody might consider doing the
removal of the code.
Done.
For kazlib, I have a slight concern. The version in Debian is newer
than what was bundled in the source (not by much: it looks like 1.21
vs 1.20), but I have seen while grepping the kmer source comments
like "My hacked kazlib returns pointers". Should I rely on the
package's tests to pick up and potential problems resulting from
this?
From my point of view the tests are designed to reproduce expected
results. A software should not break if a depencency is upgraded. The
later is a totally normal thing and happens all the time. So if you do
not have any strong reasons to assume that the newer versions might
create any trouble I think this is OK.
I was concerned more about potential modifications of the bundled code
than the version upgrade alone, but I think you are right in that the
test suite should pick up any errors resulting from this.
Thanks for your work on this
Of course. I myself would like to use this package.
About the shared/static library issue. I looked through the Debian
Policy Manual again and came across the section about static libraries
(Section 8.3) [1]. The exceptions listed there look like they match this
package's situation. Should I just keep the static libraries as they are
for early versions of this package?
Thanks and regards
Afif
1.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html#s-sharedlibs-static
--
Afif Elghraoui | عفيف الغراوي
http://afif.ghraoui.name
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/554e93d7.6040...@ghraoui.name
