Hi all, [...] > I do not find branch 6_0_17 and I do not even think that we need this > extra branch. I'd recommend to use master and as far as I understood > Olivier's comment your test should be sufficient.
Sure. Sorry for the branch naming mixup, it was a little late ;) > I personally also do not feel able to test but I think under this > circumstances its a sensible approach to upload and thus enable some > wider testing rather than expecting people to build a separate > branch. Agreed. I just didn't want to break functionality I am not familiar with, as I never used this part of Artemis myself (still better than having Artemis removed in the first place though). > I have unmerged the fastqc and artemis bug since it seems we will be > able to fix both packages without reintroducing the old API to htsjdk. Good to hear! > So I'd recommend you merge your separate branch back to master and push > these changes. I can have another look (I'm also currently bumping > debhelper to compat level 10 and mark those watch files I have verified > to version=4 just to have a marker even if version=3 works as well). I'm > perfectly fine if you upload yourself without my additional inspection. I see -- thanks for the housekeeping work and the upload. As far as Artemis is concerned, it would have been a shame to have it drop out of stretch for something like this bug. @Andrew: I would have prepared a PR againsr sanger-pathogens/Artemis as well but due to the level of divergence between Sanger's and Debian's version it wasn't trivial to reduce it to a concise and short patch. I recommend that the new Artemis developer (fingers crossed) should take a look at Debian's full patch set, which, among other things, introduces support for more recent dependencies (e.g. htsjdk). Kind regards Sascha
