#624 closed porting (performed)
port back slv tools to trunk
| Reported by: | westram | Owned by: | westram |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | arb7.0 |
| Component: | no idea | Version: | SVN |
| Keywords: | Cc: |
Description (last modified by westram)
Port back slv tools to trunk.
check these patches:
Change History (8)
comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by westram
- Owner changed from devel to westram
- Status changed from new to _started
comment:2 follow-up: ↓ 3 Changed 9 years ago by epruesse
comment:3 in reply to: ↑ 2 ; follow-up: ↓ 4 Changed 9 years ago by westram
- Description modified (diff)
Replying to epruesse:
The point of these patches was only to have a simple means for export by accession and to have a more shell suited interface to the PT server than arb_probe. I don't think you need to look into the patches, just making the two binaries work should suffice.
ok
They also don't need the slv_ name.
but then arb_probe would be generated twice
comment:4 in reply to: ↑ 3 Changed 9 years ago by epruesse
but then arb_probe would be generated twice
I just meant that there might be more suitable names for the tools. Changing the name in the pipeline would be trivial. arb_pt_client maybe? or arb_pt?
comment:5 Changed 9 years ago by westram
- Description modified (diff)
comment:6 Changed 9 years ago by westram
- Resolution set to performed
- Status changed from _started to closed
with [13191]
comment:7 Changed 8 years ago by westram
- Milestone set to arb6.1
mark changes that got fixed after arb 6.0.x
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
The point of these patches was only to have a simple means for export by accession and to have a more shell suited interface to the PT server than arb_probe. I don't think you need to look into the patches, just making the two binaries work should suffice. They also don't need the slv_ name.