Hi,
I tried to upgrade cnvkit to its latest upstream version. Steffen and
Michael (in CC) did a lot of effort to follow some recommendation given
in UpstreamGuide[1] (BTW, the link to policy there seems to deal with a
different topic - at least in the latest policy). While I absolutely
agree with the argument that language extensions in upstream scripts are
a nuisance I think we all agreed in the thread starting here[2] that we
are doing a disservice to our users when renaming tools that are named
differently in the non-Debian free software world. Thus our template
contains an according lintian-override[3] which I'm using in all new
packages I'm packaging.
The thread[2] actually was about the cnvkit example and IMHO we should
decide now what to do here. I'm persinally in favour of shipping
upstream names. They moved from setup.py to pyproject.toml so our patch
does not work any more. I wonder whether we want to fix the patch or
rather our rules file which does a lot of renaming which we could drop
and by doing so simplify the packaging.
What do you think?
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide#Language_extensions_in_scripts
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-med/2018/06/msg00043.html
[3]
https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/community/package_template/-/blob/master/debian/lintian-overrides
--
http://fam-tille.de
