[Debian-med-packaging] Bug#1113092: Status of lambda-align

[Andreas Tille]

Hi Enrico,

thank you for your quick reply ... which I missed unfortunately since
mails to bugs.debian.org ending up in a different folder than my Debian
Med list mails.  Thus I just

  - cherry-picked some of your commits to debian/exprimental to master
  - injected the changelog paragraph for a consistent history
    (despite its not logical that your seqan 2.5 changes are not
     contained any more - same in other packages, not happy about this)
  - fixed the CMake 4 issue
  - uploaded

Am Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 03:09:55PM +0200 schrieb Enrico Seiler:
> I'll have a more in-depth look next week, but I'll share my first thoughts.

Just take your time. ;-)
 
> > Maybe a good question for Enrico, since he's both the one who did the
> > upload and someone with a solid SeqAn background :)
> 
> As far as I remember, it worked with the new seqan2 version.
> We updated all packages that depend on seqan2 for experimental.
> 
> seqan2-2.5.0 is still on experimental, and upstream also has a new version (2.5.1).
> Since it needs to be updated anyway, this seems like a good opportunity for me to release 2.5.2 and update the package.

I'd suggest to be a bit more pushing with this transition once you
consider the new version ripe.  Those CMake related RC bugs came in the
way and we had no good means to fix these decently without creating
non-logic changelog entries.  I think the time is good for some change
given we just released Trixie.
 
> I'd imagine it would also be nice to have a new upstream release of lambda-align1/2?

Perfectly fine ... and probably also new lambda-align3, right?

> > I can only imagine the command line usage or output format has changed
> > enough across versions to have pipelines using lambda require a specific
> > version. That's reason enough to keep version 1 i Debian, IMHO -- if
> > there are still popular tools that use haven't migrated yet.
> I'll check what the differences are and potentially contact the author.
> As Sascha mentioned, reproducibility will probably be the main argument for keeping it.
 
Perfectly fine for me.  It might make sense to mention this in the
description of the packages.

Thank you for your support
    Andreas.




-- 
https://fam-tille.de