Hi, after reading https://github.com/soedinglab/ffindex_soedinglab/issues/4 I came to the conclusion that we somehow picked the wrong fork of ffindex. For me it seems very probable that if we pick the old codebase bug #907624 which was introduced when choosing this will vanish if we revert to the previously packaged code base. I have a local commit which is doing this:
diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog index 6a26115..c409f4f 100644 --- a/debian/changelog +++ b/debian/changelog @@ -1,3 +1,12 @@ +ffindex (0.9.9.7+sog+git20160415.14274c9-1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium + + * The previous location on Github was an improperly choosen fork + (see https://github.com/soedinglab/ffindex_soedinglab/issues/4) + Here the version is now named "0.9.9.7+sog" (Saved On Github) + to make it alphabethically later than the previous one. + + -- Andreas Tille <ti...@debian.org> Wed, 19 Dec 2018 09:16:09 +0100 + ffindex (0.9.9.7+soedinglab+git20180802.74550c8-1) unstable; urgency=medium * Fix watch file (version should actually be +git20171201.74550c8 but diff --git a/debian/watch b/debian/watch index 91b4f38..b47f123 100644 --- a/debian/watch +++ b/debian/watch @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ version=4 -opts="mode=git,pretty=0.9.9.7+soedinglab+git%cd.%h" \ - https://github.com/soedinglab/ffindex_soedinglab.git HEAD +opts="mode=git,pretty=0.9.9.7+sog+git%cd.%h" \ + https://github.com/ahcm/ffindex.git HEAD Upstream at github.com/ahcm/ffindex was extremely quick to tag a release and so it is at least active. Steffen, was your pick intentional or did you just stumbled by chance over the other fork? Are you OK with reverting to the old code? Kind regards Andreas. PS: I reported the segfault issue to the according fork anyway https://github.com/soedinglab/ffindex_soedinglab/issues/7 -- http://fam-tille.de
