structbiol team mailing list archive

[Tim Fenn <fenn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 10:30:51 +0200
Morten Kjeldgaard <mok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> On 12/09/2010, at 09.52, Tim Fenn wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 20:46:15 +0200
> > Morten Kjeldgaard <mortenkjeldgaard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 06/07/2010, at 02.19, Tim Fenn wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sounds good to me - what about SSM?  Is there a similar plan
> >>> there?
> >>
> >> Yeah, I guess it would be a good idea to create a project for SSM  
> >> too.
> >>
> >
> > Any progress on this?  It would help to have repositories to pull
> > from for updates and the like, since I'm not sure how long mmdb/ssm
> > will be available otherwise.
> 
> Yes, there is now a project for SSM as well [1]. There is a tar-ball  
> there, but it is essentially the same distribution that everyone
> has. Nothing has happened to the source in a long time. The tarball
> is new and has a different checksum than the old one, so merely using
> the new tar-ball without bumping the version number is not possible,
> at least not in the Debian/Ubuntu world.
> 

Great, thanks!

> 
> Wrt. to the packages mmdb and ssm, I am contemplating if it would be
> a good idea to coordinate the version-id of the CCP4 release that
> the source code is compatible with. What do you think?
> 

I would suggest asking Eugene if he plans on sticking with his own
versioning scheme or not - its usually best to work this kind of thing
out with upstream.

Regards,
Tim