[Debian-med-packaging] Finishing seqan

[Andreas Tille]

Hi,

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 07:46:22AM +0000, Michael Crusoe wrote:
> Agreed that consistent names are good.

+1

> How about the following?
> 
> source package "seqan1" produces binary package "libseqan1-dev" (version
> 1.4.2) which provides and conflicts with "seqan-dev" for backwards
> compatibility. Existing reverse build-dependencies are updated to use the
> new name on a rolling basis.
> 
> source package "seqan2" produces binary package "libseqan2-dev",
> "seqan-apps", "libseqan2-docs" (version 2.1.x)

Seqan-apps is lacking the "2" and I generally do not saa a reason to add
the version number to both of the source(+binary) packages.  That's why
I suggested to drop the "2" at all for seqan 2.x in my first mail.  May
be I misunderstood the suggestion made in Copenhagen.
 
> As for "mason2" that will be confusing given the current unrelated package
> "mason".

ACK. Which keeps me thinking that we could drop the "2" in all cases.

As said before:  I'll leave the final decision to those who are doing
the actual work but wanted to raise my optinion here.

Kind regards

    Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de