Re: Uploaded new version 1.6 of htslib, samtools & bcftools to experimental - any known issues with reverse dependencies
Hi Mattia,
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 12:53:48PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > What is the argument in favour of considering clearly unsupported
> > undocumented internal functions to be part of a library's interface
> > just because symbols are visible — in the binary but not the headers?
>
> I've been convinced off list to not being so uptight in technicalities.
> My argument would be only about definitions and being "academically
> right", which is clearly way too overzealous sometimes...
> Let's just say those functions were private and are not supposed to be
> used by anything, so it's "fine enough" to just drop them from the
> symbols list.
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.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: