Hi,
since version 5.2.b is not worse than 5.1 (= upstream upgrade with
the very same problematic output as version 5.1) I decided to update
to the latest upstream version and pinged upstream again[1].
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] https://github.com/pcingola/SnpEff/issues/455
--
http://fam-ti
Hi Pierre,
writing from some weak connection while traveling.
Am Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 02:30:45PM +0200 schrieb Pierre Gruet:
> I found some time :-D
> Upstream changed the location of the build-time tests, putting them in a
> more canonical place. I updated the patches and d/rules accordingly. T
Hi Andreas,
Le 24/08/2023 à 11:21, Andreas Tille a écrit :
Hi Pierre,
I just noticed that snpeff upstream has tagged a new release. I've
injected the new tarball into Salsa Git but did not yet worked on the
quilt patches that need to be adapted. If you throw an ENOTIME error
I could see how f
Hi Pierre,
I just noticed that snpeff upstream has tagged a new release. I've
injected the new tarball into Salsa Git but did not yet worked on the
quilt patches that need to be adapted. If you throw an ENOTIME error
I could see how far I might come with the changes. If you find some
spare time
Hi,
since upstream is not very quick in answering to questions in issues I
had a look myself into the upstream repository and checked when the
version string was bumped to the last release of the 5.0 series which is
5.0f. I found the commit[1] where REVISION was bumped to 'f'. The
git log messag
Hi Pierre,
given that this bug might be quite invasive to a couple of rdepends
do you think it makes sense to upload some
5.1+d+dfsg+really+5.0
named copy of version 5.0? At least if upstream might need some time
to respond? We might also turn your example into an autopkgtest to
avoid futur
Hi Pierre,
Am Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 10:00:32AM +0100 schrieb Pierre Gruet:
> I will provide the upstream of snpeff with a minimal non-working example, as
> I am unfortunately not able to understand it myself.
Thanks a lot, that's actually the help I was hoping for
Andreas.
PS: Please add t
Package: snippy
Version: 4.6.0+dfsg-1
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-Cc: Pierre Gruet
Hi,
I was informed that snippy is not behaving nicely in all cases when
snpeff 5.1 is used. A colleague is rather using it successfully with
snpeff 5.0. You can verify this with the following test script:
#!
8 matches
Mail list logo
