Hi Aaron,
Am Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 12:38:39AM -0400 schrieb Aaron M. Ucko:
>
> I wasn't quite as quick as I'd hoped, but still managed to avoid a
> separate NEW cycle. I subsequently discovered the need for some
> additional tuneups, which I've pushed but not uploaded because I might
> not be entirely done.
I noticed that another upload does not keep the position of the package
in the new queue but pulls it down at the end again. :-( BTW, what is
your rationale to push the old version 2.11.2+dfsg-5 as well? Wouldn't
that be overridden by 3.0.0+dfsg2-1?
> I've likewise pushed a couple of sra-sdk commits that in conjunction
> with my latest ncbi-vdb changes get the build step to succeed. The
> installation step fails because debian/control currently lists just a
> single binary package, so debhelper directs the upstream build system to
> install directly into debian/sra-toolkit. Accounting for ngs-sdk's
> incorporation should reinstate the use of debian/tmp, but I don't have
> time to look into that right now.
Thanks for working on this. Without checking the background I think
debhelper uses debian/tmp for multiple binary packages and
debian/pkgname for single binary packages. I fail to understand in
what way the name of that temporary dir might be an issue but I can't
check in the next two weeks.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
