Le Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 11:06:08PM +0200, Philipp Kern a écrit : > On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 10:33:06AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > I understand your decision for clustalx. I think that there would still be > > a > > benefit to have clustalw in main for Squeeze, in particular for the > > generation > > of entirely Free Squeeze derivatives for science. While we offer a large > > number > > of alternatives, Clustal W is the reference in its field. > > Would it make sense to "just" offer a backport of the current version > through backports.d.o instead?
Technically, both options (and other solutions like apt-pinning) have pros and cons, but the issue is not technical. Clustal W 2.1 is basically the relicensed version of 2.0.12. Other changes are bug fixes and autogenerated files. By replacing the clustalw package in Squeeze, we would reduce the quantity for non-free software distributed by Debian, and make it easier for our users to install Clustal W, which would be a nice way to thank its developers for having freed their software. This said, I have uploaded clustalw and clustalx to backports.debian.org… Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110718020109.ga1...@merveille.plessy.net
