[Debian-med-packaging] Please upload NEW hhsuite

[Andreas Tille]

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:15:42AM +0100, Laszlo Kajan wrote:
> I know. I've notified upstream (Andreas Hauser) about this. I am waiting for his confirmation/help with what is indeed arch indep and what is
> not. Once I see this clearly I will bring out an hhsuite-data pack (arch=all) for those parts and put them into /usr/share/hhsuite-data. I will
> also have to patch paths though so that the data is still found where expected - something I am /not/ looking forward to... this is the main
> reason why there is no hhsuite-data yet.

A frequently used way to avoid patches is to use simply symlinks from
the places where we decided to store the files to the places where a
package would expect these.  Use debian/<pkg>.links input file for
`man dh_link` to do so.
 
> > Moreover it might be that we need to work a bit in the tasks files which
> > are just mentioning hhsuite but there are some other binary packages
> > which might (or might not - I'm just asking the experts hereby) make sense
> > to be listed separately in the list of our packages (and as dependencies
> > in metapackages.
> 
> You mean ffindex? Andreas, do you release ffindex separately or only as part of the hhsuite? I am going to make an entry for it in the tasks file.

Yes, ffindex could perfectly fit in addition to hhsuite as well es
libffindex0-dev might fit into bio-dev.  I personally know to less about
these packages to decide on my own - I just need to trust your insight
into this, whather Depends or only Suggests is appropriate.  The main
guideline for such a decision should be always be:  Would a user who
installs med-bio or med-bio-dev profit from the packages that are
installed in some way.

> ** Andreas I think I made a mistake! **
> In the upload ffindex has the same version number (uses the same changelog) as hhsuite - that's wrong. It has its own version
> (lib/ffindex/VERSION: 0.9.2)! I think I've corrected this now but I am not sure it did it correctly: I gave ffindex (and libffindex) its own
> debian/*.changelog files.

Nice try but it will not work this way. :-)
For getting a working example you might either

   apt-get source ncbi-tools6
or
   git clone git+ssh://tille@git.debian.org/git/debian-med/ncbi-tools6.git

The debian/changelog file is related to the source package and not to
the resulting binaries - so you have only one such file and only ones
such version.

> Could you please have a look? What do we do now?

Find a book with large friendly letters saying "DON'T PANIC"? ;-)

> Can we correct this before it gets accepted (iff) with the higher
> version number?

We can ask ftpmaster to reject the package (I don't really know whether
there is some kind of formalism for this - I guess a simple mail would
be sufficient).

And we can always use (hmmm, I always tend to forget the terminus
technicus for this - you will find this in relevant Debian documentation
which I currently do not have time to check) a prefix in front of
the version number separated by ':' like this:

    1:0.9.2 > 2.0.12

and for instance

    2:0.1   > 1:0.9.2

etc.  So even if this is not really nice we can perfectly deal with the
issue.  However, I'd advise upstream to separate different things if
they are different.  This does not only help for Debian packaging.

Kind regards

        Andreas. 

-- 
http://fam-tille.de