[Debichem-devel] jgromacs package seems useful
mbanck at debian.org
Thu May 17 12:22:25 UTC 2012
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 02:11:49PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 17.05.2012, 13:08 +0200 schrieb "Steffen Möller":
> > > > One thing about README.source; I think if you do something fancy with
> > > > the original tarball, it would be best to supply a "get-orig-source"
> > > > script for the modifications.
> > Right. This is why I had time to address the packaging and you had not :o)
> > > > I take you based you packaging on "jgromacs_v1_src.tgz"?
> > Yes.
> > > > I just renamed the "source" directory inside the jgromacs tarball to
> > > > "jgromacs-1.0" here so far, and it build fine.
> > > >
> > > > You wrote you removed jama, I think it is fine to keep it even if it is
> > > > not used in the build. Unless we have to remove it due to some
> > > > licensing issues, which I guess is not the case?
> > Hm. The debian/copyright file would need to be amended. IIRC correctly
> > then my build instructions only take code from the jgromacs subfolder,
> > i.e. the extra eyeballs on the Jama library remain established. That
> > is the only bit that is important to me, really. Leave it in if you
> > prefer, even though I had done that fancy GZIP=-9n while retaring.
> Hi guys. I added a script to create the tarball and made some other
> changes, which I thought should be done.
I haven't tried it (not least because I can never remember how to run
debian/watch and/or debian/get-orig-source.sh properly), but you're
removing the jama directory while I don't see a +dfsg in the version.
Granted, the removal was not due to DFSG issues, but shouldn't there be
some other indication that this is not the prestine source other than in
I still think repackaging the upstream source just because parts of it
are unused (and this is not a huge space problem, i.e. > 10 MB or so) is
More information about the Debichem-devel