Re: Packaging Jalview -- any general guidelines concerning privacy?

Hi Pierre, On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 10:11:14PM +0100, Pierre Gruet wrote: > > I'm currently on the packaging of Jalview. Take a big thumbs up for this! > I would like to get some advice > as Jalview upstream is collecting statistics on its use through the > Internet. Basically this amounts to 4

Re: Packaging Jalview -- any general guidelines concerning privacy?

Hi Andreas, Le 27/11/2020 à 09:22, Andreas Tille a écrit : Hi Pierre, On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 10:11:14PM +0100, Pierre Gruet wrote: >> [...]>> - HTTP logs on the Jalview website We record IP addresses of machines which access the web site, either via the browser when downloading the ap

Re: [RFS] tortoize

Hi Andreas, Op 26-11-2020 om 21:55 schreef Andreas Tille: BTW, it seems to be the same example file in libcifpp. I'd consider it a good idea to have this file only once and set dependencies appropriately. This file is very common, I use it in all my PDB related packages. I agree that sticking

[RFS] parasail

gbp clone --pristine-tar https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/parasail OR dcut dm --uid npatra...@gmail.com --allow parasail Thanks and Regards Nilesh

done Re: [RFS] parasail

Thanks! On 27.11.20 13:26, Nilesh Patra wrote: > dcut dm --uid npatra...@gmail.com --allow > parasail

Re: [RFS] tortoize

On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 08:50:59AM +0100, Maarten L. Hekkelman wrote: > However, I ended up with a package that builds fine when using sbuild, but > fails when using gbp buildpackage. The package created with gbp has a > lintian error telling me: > ... > > ... > Why is that? What's the difference

Re: [RFS] tortoize

On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 02:45:45PM +0100, Maarten L. Hekkelman wrote: > > Found the error, the original tar ball contained links for the files > generated by autoreconf in config/m4. Good. > This package is now ready to be uploaded as well. Nearly. :-) I have fixed debian/upstream/metadata.

Re: [RFS] tortoize

Op 27-11-2020 om 08:50 schreef Maarten L. Hekkelman: However, I ended up with a package that builds fine when using sbuild, but fails when using gbp buildpackage. The package created with gbp has a lintian error telling me: gbp:info: Running Postbuild hook E: tortoize source: source-contains

[RFS] pyqi

gbp clone --pristine-tar https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/pyqi OR dcut dm --uid npatra...@gmail.com --allow pyqi Thanks and Regards Nilesh

Re: [RFS] pyqi

On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 11:45:55PM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote: > dcut dm --uid npatra...@gmail.com --allow pyqi done - and thanks!

New Jalview release -- hesitating on license

Hi, I'm stumbling upon the license terms of a part of the code (which is important enough so that the whole program really needs it) of the new release of Jalview I am packaging: that part has a license identical to BSD-3-clause except that clause 3 bas been changed to: 3. Redistributions

Re: [RFS] tortoize

Hi Tony, Thanks for the explanation, there's one thing though, I configured sbuild to run lintian. The package created by sbuild is really clean. Now there was a problem in the original tar ball. It contained links in the config/m4 directory, I stupidly checked those in in git and they ended

Re: New Jalview release -- hesitating on license

Hi Pierre, On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 10:48:13PM +0100, Pierre Gruet wrote: > I'm stumbling upon the license terms of a part of the code (which is > important enough so that the whole program really needs it) of the new > release of Jalview I am packaging: that part has a license identical to > BSD-3

Re: New Jalview release -- hesitating on license

Hi Pierre, On 27.11.20 23:10, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi Pierre, > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 10:48:13PM +0100, Pierre Gruet wrote: >> I'm stumbling upon the license terms of a part of the code (which is >> important enough so that the whole program really needs it) of the new >> release of Jalview

Re: resfinder - test.fsa file missing for debian/tests/run-unit-test

Hi Steffen, On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 11:20:24PM +0100, Steffen Möller wrote: > > routine-update could not install test.fsa - is that possibly just not > uploaded to salsa? It was part of the former upstream version. I've now moved this to debian/tests/test.fsa.xz . I'd be more than happy if you