Re: [Python-modules-team] RFS: py3cairo

[Jakub Wilk]

(Redirecting this mail to debian-python@, which is a better place to ask 
for sponsorship.)


* Koichi Akabe , 2012-03-08, 21:49:

http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/py3cairo/py3cairo_1.10.0+dfsg-1.dsc


I don't intend to sponsor this package, but here's my quick review:

Please inject the package to the team's repository and set 
Vcs-{Svn,Browser} fields in debian/control.


${python3:Provides} is evil[0], please don't use it.

Do you really need python3-sphinx? The command line tools are provided 
by both python-sphinx and python3-sphinx (the former is much more 
popular) and you don't do anything to ensure that they are actually run 
with Python 3.X.


Copyright format URI should have a trailing slash.

In line 27 of your copyright file, you have a License field without 
short license name. This is not allowed.


Please consider using dh_sphinxdoc instead of manually symlinking 
JavaScript code. dh_sphinxdoc it's more future-proof.


Please build extension modules for all supported Python 3 versions, not 
only for the default one. (Admittedly, it's not easy to test it, since 
currently only version is supported.)


Upstream provides a test suite. Please run it at build time (ideally 
using all supported Python 3 versions).


I saw the following warning in the build log:
| /build/py3cairo-MAlFqY/py3cairo-1.10.0+dfsg/doc/reference/text.rst:44: ERROR: Error in 
"note" directive:
| invalid option block.

I _think_ the package doesn't respect DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=noopt, but it's 
hard to tell since the upstream build system doesn't print actual 
compiling/linking commands (which is another thing you should fix).


Please provide get-orig-source target.

While Developer's Reference and Debian Policy disagree on where should 
repacking be documented (bug #561494), README.Debian is certainly wrong 
place. It should be either copyright file or README.source.


I don't quite understand why you mentioned rebuilding Sphinx 
documentation in README.Debian. It's not something unusual...



[0] Rationale: http://lists.debian.org/20110324164804.ga5...@jwilk.net

--
Jakub Wilk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2012030821.ga5...@jwilk.net

Re: Please sponsor upload of python-gdata 2.0.16

[Gustavo Franco]

Hi Dmitry,

Thanks for your help.

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Dmitry Shachnev  wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Can you please review and sponsor changes I made to python-gdata package?
>
> python-gdata (2.0.16-1) unstable; urgency=low
>
>  * Team upload.
>  * New upstream release (closes: #655566)
>  * Switch to dh and dh_python2
>  * debian/patches/remove_shebangs.patch: refreshed
>  * Switch to the newest copyright format, fix lintian warnings
>  * Bump Standards-Version to 3.9.3
>
>  -- Dmitry Shachnev   Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:12:18 +0400
>
> You can find the diff here: [1].
> There was some *minor* API break in this release, I wrote a patch for
> my retext package and emailed maintainers of other rdepends, so I
> think it can be safely uploaded to unstable.
>
> You can download the orig tarball using uscan or from [2], packaging
> is available in the svn.
> I hope to get bug #619428 [3] fixed in the next upload, not in this
> one because it's already too big, the other existing bug [4] is
> blocked by upstream issue.
>
> @Gustavo: Can I please change the maintainer to the team? Are you
> still interested in maintaining this package?

Please go ahead and change it to the team. My bad for not doing it
many moons ago. :)

regards,
-- Gustavo "stratus" Franco


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CAAAqP6+bj37coG+SNhaA2FpTM3Ksm231y=nofcdjwtnkxxq...@mail.gmail.com