[Debian-med-packaging] Package GMAP and GSNAP

[Andreas Tille]

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:42:48PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> There's two related executables in the same source package, GMAP and
> GSNAP. There's also a bunch of auxiliary executables that relate to
> both packages. Do you think we should create three binary packages
> (gmap, gsnap, common) or one binary package?

I'm in favour of different packages if it makes (the slightest) sense
to use programs for different purpose.  (I just added only one entry
for gmap to the tasks page because I was unable to invent different
descriptions - feel free to fix this in the tasks file.)
 
> Should the source package be named gmap-gsnap or gmap? The upstream
> source is named
> gmap-gsnap-2010-03-09.tar.gz

If both come in one source tarball it might make sense to keep this
tarball and just create different binary packages from it.
 
> If one binary package, should it be named gmap-gsnap or gmap?

Question becomes void respecting things I said above.
 
> If three binary packages, should the common stuff be named gmap-gsnap
> or gmap-gsnap-common? (or something else)

Whatever you prefer - you are (might be) the maintainer.
 
> A list of the executables follows. I'm a little concerned that
> executables such as snpindex are named too generically. Perhaps all
> the auxiliary executables should be put in /usr/lib/gmap (or
> /usr/lib/gmap-gsnap?).

We frequently are facing these generic names and using /usr/lib/<pkg>
together with a reasonable wrapper in /usr/bin is proably the best way
to handle this.
 
> I'm leaning towards naming the source package gmap (rather than gmap-gsnap).

Thanks for working on this

    Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de