On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 01:03:21PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > To come back to the initial discussion: You would agree that uploading > to unstable is fine? The reason why I've choosen experimental initially > was also that we have lots of packages depending from python-pysam which > sometimes is lagging behind samtools. I just verified that there is > a new python-pysam version which says in the NEWS file: > > This release wraps htslib/samtools/bcftools versions 1.6.0 and > contains a series of bugfixes. > > So I would go on an move the packages htslib, samtools and bcftools from > experimental to unstable and upload python-pysam 0.13.0 if nobody > insists.
Yep, if python-pysam is fine (as are the other rev-dependencies) then
yap, should be fine to go ahead.
One thing: I noticed that in htslib's tracker page an important
multiarch issue is reported: libhts-dev is marked ma:same, but there is
a static library in a non-multiarch path.
The options to fix it are:
* don't build the static lib at all
* move the static lib to a multiarch path
* remove the ma:same notation
(I prefer them in that order, personally, but IIUC static libraries are
kind of liked by science/med people; icbw of course)
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
