Re: static analysis and other tools for checking Python code

2016-03-01 Thread Paul Wise
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > It's probably worth looking at [1] to see if there's anything worth salvaging > for what you're doing. ... > [1] http://snapshot.debian.org/package/lintian4python/0.28.4/ If someone were to revive upstream development of lintian4python (pe

Re: static analysis and other tools for checking Python code

2016-03-01 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Wednesday, March 02, 2016 11:22:52 AM Paul Wise wrote: > Hi all, > > Some of you may have noticed I'm working on a tool called > check-all-the-things that does what it says on the tin. > > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/check-all-the-things.git > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/c

Re: nose2 reverse dependancies

2016-03-01 Thread Paul Wise
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > FYI, I don't know of a nice way to build a dependency graph, like > sometimes I see somewhere, with graphiz On #debian-mentors recently this question came up and the answers were: debtree apt-cache dotty botch dose-ceve -- bye, pabs http

Re: Autopkgtest smoke test for Python libraries

2016-03-01 Thread Ben Finney
Yaroslav Halchenko writes: > sorry if I came late to the discussion and missing the point, but > pybuild/dh-python already has some tests discovery mechanisms Have another read of the thread: this is not about running the upstream test suite. It is about making a standard “smoke test”, i.e. a s

static analysis and other tools for checking Python code

2016-03-01 Thread Paul Wise
Hi all, Some of you may have noticed I'm working on a tool called check-all-the-things that does what it says on the tin. https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/check-all-the-things.git https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/check-all-the-things.git/tree/doc/README One of the things

Re: Autopkgtest smoke test for Python libraries

2016-03-01 Thread Yaroslav Halchenko
On Wed, 02 Mar 2016, Ben Finney wrote: > This belongs IMO in an existing “build Debian packages for Python” tool. > As it stands, I'll need to manually add a bundle of files to every > Python package I maintain. > Who can recommend a way to make this a more automated part of the Debian > Python

Re: Autopkgtest smoke test for Python libraries

2016-03-01 Thread Paul Wise
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Ben Finney wrote: > Who can recommend a way to make this a more automated part of the Debian > Python package build workflow? Add things that should be changed to `cme fix` or pypi2deb https://wiki.debian.org/AutomaticPackagingTools -- bye, pabs https://wiki.de

Re: nose2 reverse dependancies

2016-03-01 Thread Brian May
Mattia Rizzolo writes: > They are down the dep chain: > > nose2 => nose2-cov => python-pytest-cov => python-watchdog => > python-mkdocs => djangorestframework > > (if I did my work correctly) That looks about right. Thanks. The removal messages are fine if it is an immediate dependancy, however

Re: nose2 reverse dependancies

2016-03-01 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Mar 01, 2016, at 11:02 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: >FYI, I don't know of a nice way to build a dependency graph, like sometimes I >see somewhere, with graphiz That's a tool I'd sometimes love to have too. Cheers, -Barry pgpSD9s_Vutxe.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Autopkgtest smoke test for Python libraries

2016-03-01 Thread Ben Finney
Martin Pitt writes: > Thanks to Matthias for pointing this out to me. I try to reply > in-thread. Please keep CC:ing me as I'm not subscribed. Done. > > The goal is to perform a simple “smoke test” to verify the correct > > installation of the Python libraries from the Debian packages, for all

Re: nose2 reverse dependancies

2016-03-01 Thread Mattia Rizzolo
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 09:42:57AM +1100, Brian May wrote: > According to https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/autoremovals.cgi: > > Brian May >djangorestframework: buggy deps nose2, flagged for removal in 28.7 days >python-mkdocs: buggy deps nose2, flagged for removal in 28.7 days > > Which i

Re: Autopkgtest smoke test for Python libraries

2016-03-01 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Mar 01, 2016, at 06:10 PM, Martin Pitt wrote: >You could use it for that purpose indeed, but that's not really what >it is intended for. The idea is that the generic tests apply to all >packages of a particular type, so you can change them centrally >instead of having to modify and upload hundr

Re: Autopkgtest smoke test for Python libraries

2016-03-01 Thread Martin Pitt
Hey Barry, Barry Warsaw [2016-03-01 10:48 -0500]: > I gather that it's supposed to be used by the maintainer in a source package > ($vcs repo) to jumpstart a debian/tests directory? You could use it for that purpose indeed, but that's not really what it is intended for. The idea is that the gener

Re: Autopkgtest smoke test for Python libraries

2016-03-01 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Mar 01, 2016, at 09:05 AM, Martin Pitt wrote: >Very nice! There's precedent for Perl, Ruby and DKMS packages which >have a fairly standard way to run the upstream test suite. For Python >there are some conventions, like "./setup.py test" or running >nosetests, maybe it's worth experimenting wit

Re: Request to join team

2016-03-01 Thread Ondrej Novy
Hi, gentle ping? Thank you. 2016-02-22 20:50 GMT+01:00 Ondrej Novy : > Hi, > > > Why you want to join the team: e.g. maintain your current packages > within the team, help maintain some specific packages, etc. > > I want to maintain new package python-m3u8 (and others). And I want to > help wit

Re: Autopkgtest smoke test for Python libraries

2016-03-01 Thread Martin Pitt
Hello all, Thanks to Matthias for pointing this out to me. I try to reply in-thread. Please keep CC:ing me as I'm not subscribed. > The goal is to perform a simple “smoke test” to verify the correct > installation of the Python libraries from the Debian packages, for all > relevant Python interpr