Hi Maarten, On 2022-01-31 15:13, Maarten L. Hekkelman wrote: > Okay, finally had time to work on this. > > I patched the libcifpp many times but I now feel confident it should > work. It builds on an experimental box (with i386 to make things more > difficult). When I install the packages from this new patch (v2.0.4-6) I > can build all the dependencies as well.
Great! > Op 24-01-2022 om 12:46 schreef Andrius Merkys: >>>> In file included from src/cif2pdb.cpp:28: >>>> src/cif-tools.hpp:34:10: fatal error: cif++/Config.hpp: No such file or >>>> directory >>>> 34 | #include "cif++/Config.hpp" >>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> The Config file was no longer needed thanks to the switch to cmake. The >>> API should be roughly the same. > > As suggested by other, I opted to put a stub file in the debian package. > That was the easiest thing to do. OK. > The page for the auto-package mentions a conflict with the also updated > libpdb-redo. Is this going to work? This is purely informational. It says you probably should not attempt transitioning libcifpp and libpdb-redo at the same time. > Anyway, now someone needs to file that bug to ask for a time slot. Who > is supposed to do that? Is that me? Or does anyone else volunteer? It would be great if you could do that. You may use my recent openmm transition bug report [1] as a template. What is important in libcifpp case is to tell that you are planning to patch the new libcifpp to make it backwards-compatible with the old libcifpp. [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1004063 Best wishes, Andrius
