Heya, I have replied, at least I had typed it :o/
So, yes, I had chosen that version of ffsort_index to get hhsuite to
compile. I have no idea if there are other reverse dependencies on
ffindex, my priority is on hhsuite.
Cheers,
Steffen
On 04.01.19 18:17, Michael Crusoe wrote:
I think 0.9.
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 07:17:24PM +0200, Michael Crusoe wrote:
> I think 0.9.9.7+sog+git20160415.14274c9-1 is the source of the recent FTBFS
> of hhsuite: https://bugs.debian.org/917495 as our packaged version is
> missing the "ffsort_index" function.
>
> The hh-suite github repo contains a submo
I think 0.9.9.7+sog+git20160415.14274c9-1 is the source of the recent FTBFS
of hhsuite: https://bugs.debian.org/917495 as our packaged version is
missing the "ffsort_index" function.
The hh-suite github repo contains a submodule pointing at their fork of
ffindex at ~ 2017-06-01:
https://github.com
Ping?
Steffen, if you did not had a specific reason I assume it was by
mistake and will replace the Segfaulting code by the original one.
If I do not hear from you I assume you will agree.
Kind regards, Andreas.
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 09:53:38AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after readin
Hi Andreas,
the reverse dependency HH-suite failed to compile with the ffindex
version Debian shipped.
I have no feelings about it. It should just work :) The HH-suite is
about structure prediction from sequence homology, which I found we
should continue to offer in our distribution
https:
Hi,
after reading https://github.com/soedinglab/ffindex_soedinglab/issues/4
I came to the conclusion that we somehow picked the wrong fork of
ffindex. For me it seems very probable that if we pick the old codebase
bug #907624 which was introduced when choosing this will vanish if we
revert to the
6 matches
Mail list logo
