Re: ITP: HTSeq

[Diane Trout <diane@ghic.org>]

> 
> However, the ITP makes some other - you can call it bureaucratic -
> sense.  As far as I know ftpmasters are dealing with the ITP bug number
> and it helps following the status of a new package.  So for the house
> keeping part of the ITP function I would do it anyway.  On the other
> hand I'd be fine with trying to upload a package to new without an
> according ITP bug and by doing so find out whether what I said in this
> paragraph is not true any more.

I asked Scott Kitterman whose on the FTP team and he described that having the 
ITP is useful for them for working with NEW. I've gone ahead and submitted it, 
and added a Closes: #718664 to the changelog.

One question is who should be on the X-Debbugs-CC list? I left the default 
debian-devel and added this list, was that the right choice?

> 
> In several cases you find more than one section a package would fit
> into.  I'd just leave it like it is - speccifically because of the
> reasoning you have given why you decided to call the package
> python-htseq (and not only htseq when I asked you about the name).  For
> instance have python-biopython, python-csb and others in section python
> - this is just fine and we are using the Debian Med tasks to do a better
> categorisation.
> 
> BTW, do you think the package fits into bio, bio-dev or even into both?

I would think its more aimed at bio-dev. 

Diane