Re: RFS: colorzero/2.0-1 [ITP] -- Construct, convert, and manipulate colors in a Pythonic manner.
Hi Peter, On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 01:03:31PM +0100, Peter Green wrote: Just done some reviewing/tweaking. I've pushed the following changes to the git repo, please tell me if you have any objections. I added a gpb.conf to make git-buildpackage actually use pristine tar and hence result in an orig tarball that was consistent with what is already in Ubuntu. I found the clean target was not cleaning up the "egg-info" so I added a command to do that. I added a closes: entry for the ITP bug. No objections at all -- all looks good to me! Still getting used to gbp (I was testing the builds with sbuild prior to uploading to Salsa, hence why I missed the not-cleaning-up-egg-info). That leaves one issue that I think still needs to be sorted before I sponsor the package. The file "copyrights" has no license header and the git history says it was copied but not where from. Poking around I discovered a script of the same name in gpiozero, containing what appears to be the same code and committed by you with a commit message of "create copyright header", so I presume this script is entirely your work, assuming it is I would suggest adding a copyright header upstream and then picking the commit up as a Debian patch until there is another upstream release. You're absolutely correct I shamelessly copied my "copyrights" script from gpio-zero :). I'll add a copyright header on there in a mo and pick the commit as a patch. Finally would you consider adding me as a co-maintainer. Certainly -- I'll add you to "Uploaders" as Emmanuel suggests later in the thread. Thanks! Dave.
Re: RFS: colorzero/2.0-1 [ITP] -- Construct, convert, and manipulate colors in a Pythonic manner.
Hi Emmanuel, On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 06:40:58PM -0300, Emmanuel Arias wrote: On 6/19/21 9:03 AM, Peter Green wrote: Just done some reviewing/tweaking. I've pushed the following changes to the git repo, please tell me if you have any objections. I added a gpb.conf to make git-buildpackage actually use pristine tar and hence result in an orig tarball that was consistent with what is already in Ubuntu. Also, you can try to follow DEP-14 (although is mark as candidate) and add debian/master as default branch. Ah, this was something that confused me a bit when initially working on this. I'd read through DEP-14, but then figured a simple way to start would be to grab my existing packaging for Raspbian and use gbp import-dsc on it. This set up the repo with a "master" branch rather than "debian/master" and I then wondered if I'd mis-interpreted DEP-14's prescription to use "debian/master", and whether it meant one should use "debian" branch or alternatively a "master" branch. Anyway, given it should be "debian/master" I'll get that corrected (I assume I'm right in thinking that'll need a "debian-branch=debian/master" addition to gbp.conf). What about enable salsa-ci? Certainly something on the todo list, but not something I'd read up on yet. I'll have a look at that this afternoon. Thanks, Dave.
Re: RFS: colorzero/2.0-1 [ITP] -- Construct, convert, and manipulate colors in a Pythonic manner.
Hi On 6/21/21 11:06 AM, Dave Jones wrote: > Hi Emmanuel, > > On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 06:40:58PM -0300, Emmanuel Arias wrote: >> >> On 6/19/21 9:03 AM, Peter Green wrote: >>> Just done some reviewing/tweaking. I've pushed the following changes >>> to the git repo, please tell me if you have any objections. >>> >>> I added a gpb.conf to make git-buildpackage actually use pristine >>> tar and hence result in an orig tarball that was consistent with >>> what is already in Ubuntu. >> >> Also, you can try to follow DEP-14 (although is mark as candidate) >> and add debian/master as default branch. > > Ah, this was something that confused me a bit when initially working > on this. I'd read through DEP-14, but then figured a simple way to > start would be to grab my existing packaging for Raspbian and use gbp > import-dsc on it. This set up the repo with a "master" branch rather > than "debian/master" and I then wondered if I'd mis-interpreted > DEP-14's prescription to use "debian/master", and whether it meant one > should use "debian" branch or alternatively a "master" branch. I think that I don't understand you, sorry :(. But DEP-14 recommend the use of /* for name the branchs, so for debian the branch should be debian/*, for ubuntu ubuntu/*, etc. > > Anyway, given it should be "debian/master" I'll get that corrected (I > assume I'm right in thinking that'll need a > "debian-branch=debian/master" addition to gbp.conf). > yes. (and also create it first) >> What about enable salsa-ci? > > Certainly something on the todo list, but not something I'd read up on > yet. I'll have a look at that this afternoon. > I see that you already add the file. Don't forget activate ci in the repository configuration :) Cheers, -- Emmanuel Arias @eamanu yaerobi.com OpenPGP_0xFA9DEC5DE11C63F1.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: colorzero/2.0-1 [ITP] -- Construct, convert, and manipulate colors in a Pythonic manner.
Hi Emmanuel, On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 01:33:11PM -0300, Emmanuel Arias wrote: On 6/21/21 11:06 AM, Dave Jones wrote: On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 06:40:58PM -0300, Emmanuel Arias wrote: Also, you can try to follow DEP-14 (although is mark as candidate) and add debian/master as default branch. Ah, this was something that confused me a bit when initially working on this. I'd read through DEP-14, but then figured a simple way to start would be to grab my existing packaging for Raspbian and use gbp import-dsc on it. This set up the repo with a "master" branch rather than "debian/master" and I then wondered if I'd mis-interpreted DEP-14's prescription to use "debian/master", and whether it meant one should use "debian" branch or alternatively a "master" branch. I think that I don't understand you, sorry :(. But DEP-14 recommend the use of /* for name the branchs, so for debian the branch should be debian/*, for ubuntu ubuntu/*, etc. Ah, sorry -- I'll attempt to elaborate my (rather silly) leap of "logic". Having read [PY-GIT] and [DEP-14], and knowing that gbp was specifically made for Debian packaging, after using "gbp import-dsc" I was slightly surprised to wind up on a "master" branch rather than "debian/master". I generally assume that tooling made specifically for a purpose (like Debian packaging) probably knows what it's doing better than I do, and hence I wondered whether I had missed something and whether (yes, it seems silly in hindsight, but still) the recommendation to use "debian/master" was to be interpreted as "debian or master" rather than a literal "debian/master" string. Anyway, that's why I initially pushed a "master" branch rather than "debian/master" (under the assumption that gbp's defaults are probably a better bet than me trying to second guess the interpretation of standards :). [PY-GIT] https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackaging#Git_Branch_Names [DEP-14] https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep14/ In any case, I've fixed up the branches in the repo now and I *think* I've got the CI configuration in the right place, though it doesn't seem to have triggered a run yet. I've probably missed something in the repo config -- will dig into that in a mo. Thanks for all the advice! Dave.
