Re: Proposed new package, bugs-everywhere_0.0.193-1.1
Hi! Am 21.4.2008 schrieb "Ben Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >I'm putting together a new Debian package, 'bugs-everywhere', in >anticipation of having someone sponsor it into Debian. I'd like to get >feedback on my packaging efforts before seeking a sponsor, as I'm >still rather green at packaging Python applications. Uff... Just took a quick view at your diff.gz, don't have the time for in deep review of the entire package, but: 1) You don't need to patch upstreams version of the GPL, since you already point to the corrected in /usr/share/common-licenses. 2) Please use some kind of patch managemnt system, since your diff.gz is really hard to read. 3) Your diff.gz adds stuff like bugs-everywhere-0.0.193/.be/bugs/... to the package; I don't think that's usefull, since these bug data will be outdated sooner or later. And again this stuff just makes it difficult to read your diff. Yours sincerely, Alexander Yours sincerely, Alexander
Re: Proposed new package, bugs-everywhere_0.0.193-1.1
On 21/04/2008, Ben Finney wrote: > I'd appreciate any feedback from those more experienced with Debian > packaging in general and Python packaging in particular. I won't be able to comment much on the python part since you're using -central, that I don't know. Anyway, some quick comments: - debhelper version mismatch: 5 is debian/compat, >= 6 in debian/control. - strange to see there's only a © 2005 copyright line, IIRC the project has been quite active lately. But still IIRC you're more versed into legalese than I am, so you probably told them to update their copyright notices. Hmm, and a quick grep shows that you're missing at least: ./libbe/hg.py:# Copyright (C) 2007 Steve Borho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - debian/README.Debian looks like superfluous (and contains a different address, for the sake of the argument). Maw, KiBi pgpSqI2aMOpXU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Proposed new package, bugs-everywhere_0.0.193-1.1
Howdy all, I'm putting together a new Debian package, 'bugs-everywhere', in anticipation of having someone sponsor it into Debian. I'd like to get feedback on my packaging efforts before seeking a sponsor, as I'm still rather green at packaging Python applications. (I'm also seeking Alioth hosting for the project, but encountering technical difficulties unrelated to the package.) The source package can be had here: http://www.cyber.com.au/~benf/bzr/bugs-everywhere/build-area/bugs-everywhere_0.0.193-1.1.dsc> http://www.cyber.com.au/~benf/bzr/bugs-everywhere/build-area/bugs-everywhere_0.0.193.orig.tar.gz> http://www.cyber.com.au/~benf/bzr/bugs-everywhere/build-area/bugs-everywhere_0.0.193-1.1.diff.gz> Possibly also of interest: http://www.cyber.com.au/~benf/bzr/bugs-everywhere/build-area/bugs-everywhere_0.0.193-1.1_i386.changes> The package currently passes Lintian v1.23.46 with no errors, and only a warning about the package version number. I'd appreciate any feedback from those more experienced with Debian packaging in general and Python packaging in particular. -- \"When you go in for a job interview, I think a good thing to | `\ ask is if they ever press charges." -- Jack Handey | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: python-nautilus update (Re: [Python-apps-team] Bug#475233: Needs porting to new nautilus extension api)
On Sun, 2008-04-20 at 22:40 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote: > @Ross: I'm not sure nautilus is going it right now; in fact, I'm not > sure there's consensus to ship nautilus 2.22 in lenny right now. > Perhaps you could branch your new nautilus-python to > pkg-gnome/packages/experimental, revert the changes in /unstable and > upload the 0.5 tree in experimental for now? Thanks! In fact I was just about to ask what was happening with Nautilus, to see if I should wait or revert. Silly me forgot to check that nautilus 2.22 was in sid (I'm running partial experimental here). I'll revert the changes and upload to experimental today. Ross -- Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.burtonini.com./ PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Proposed new package, bugs-everywhere_0.0.193-1.1
Hi Ben, > feedback on my packaging efforts before seeking a sponsor, as I'm > still rather green at packaging Python applications. > > (I'm also seeking Alioth hosting for the project, but encountering > technical difficulties unrelated to the package.) If this is as python app (and you'd like to follow this path) the repository it's already on Alioth, and it's called PAPT[1] ;) Regards, Sandro [1] Python Applications Packaging Team, http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonAppsPackagingTeam -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, Morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed new package, bugs-everywhere_0.0.193-1.1
Cyril Brulebois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > - debhelper version mismatch: 5 is debian/compat, >= 6 in >debian/control. Fixed. > - strange to see there's only a © 2005 copyright line, IIRC the project >has been quite active lately. But still IIRC you're more versed into >legalese than I am, so you probably told them to update their >copyright notices. Hmm, and a quick grep shows that you're missing at >least: ./libbe/hg.py:# Copyright (C) 2007 Steve Borho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Good catch. I'll have to gather the copyright notices properly from the whole tree. > - debian/README.Debian looks like superfluous (and contains a different >address, for the sake of the argument). Removed. Thanks very much for the feedback! -- \ "I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at | `\ the rate of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour ..." -- F. H. Wales, | _o__) 1936 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
VCS repository on Alioth projects with unrelated packages (was: Proposed new package, bugs-everywhere_0.0.193-1.1)
"Sandro Tosi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If this is as python app (and you'd like to follow this path) It is implemented in Python, and I'm interested in the PAPT; thanks for the invite. > the repository it's already on Alioth, and it's called PAPT[1] ;) Unfortunately (as made clear in a conversation earlier this evening), the PAPT won't allow packages to use any VCS but their chosen repository, which is currently a Subversion back-end. Since my VCS preference, and that of my upstream, is Bazaar, this makes PAPT more of a burden than I was looking for. Alioth was attractive for this package largely *because* it provides hosted Bazaar repositories. Thanks again! -- \ "I have an answering machine in my car. It says, 'I'm home now. | `\ But leave a message and I'll call when I'm out.'" -- Steven | _o__) Wright | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposed new package, bugs-everywhere_0.0.193-1.1
Ben Finney wrote: > Cyril Brulebois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> - strange to see there's only a © 2005 copyright line, IIRC the project >>has been quite active lately. But still IIRC you're more versed into >>legalese than I am, so you probably told them to update their >>copyright notices. Hmm, and a quick grep shows that you're missing at >>least: ./libbe/hg.py:# Copyright (C) 2007 Steve Borho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Good catch. I'll have to gather the copyright notices properly from > the whole tree. Have a look at `licensecheck -R *` (in case you haven't yet), very useful script for these purposes. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Check license and copyright of files in entire tree (was: Proposed new package, bugs-everywhere_0.0.193-1.1)
Emilio, and everyone: a reminder to please continue following http://www.debian.org/MailingLists#codeofconduct>. In particular, please don't send individual copies of messages also sent to the list, since I haven't asked for that. Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ben Finney wrote: > > Good catch. I'll have to gather the copyright notices properly > > from the whole tree. > > Have a look at `licensecheck -R *` (in case you haven't yet), very > useful script for these purposes. Indeed, I wasn't aware of that. In this case, it's even more useful for me to run: $ licensecheck --recursive --copyright . Thanks for informing me about that tool. -- \ “The most common way people give up their power is by | `\ thinking they don’t have any.” —Alice Walker | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Check license and copyright of files in entire tree (was: Proposed new package, bugs-everywhere_0.0.193-1.1)
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:27:18PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > Emilio, and everyone: a reminder to please continue following > http://www.debian.org/MailingLists#codeofconduct>. In particular, > please don't send individual copies of messages also sent to the list, > since I haven't asked for that. > > > Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Ben Finney wrote: > > > Good catch. I'll have to gather the copyright notices properly > > > from the whole tree. > > > > Have a look at `licensecheck -R *` (in case you haven't yet), very > > useful script for these purposes. > > Indeed, I wasn't aware of that. In this case, it's even more useful > for me to run: > > $ licensecheck --recursive --copyright . Just don't forget that it will skip a lot of file types by default. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Check license and copyright of files in entire tree
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:27:18PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > $ licensecheck --recursive --copyright . > > Just don't forget that it will skip a lot of file types by default. Thanks. From the program source, the default regex for files to check is: my $default_check_regex = '\.(c(c|pp)?|h(h|pp)?|p(l|m)|sh|php|py|rb|java|el)$'; The '--check=foobarbazregex' option overrides this. -- \“Holy knit one purl two, Batman!” —Robin | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
