Re: RFS: numpydoc/0.4-1 [RFP/ITP 559916]

2012-06-13 Thread Denis Laxalde
Denis Laxalde a écrit : (I'll commit the package into the svn repo as soon as I can.) I've updated the repository: http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/python-modules/packages/numpydoc/trunk/ Thanks. -- Denis Laxalde -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a s

Re: RFS: numpydoc/0.4-1 [RFP/ITP 559916]

2012-06-12 Thread Scott Kitterman
Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > >On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Denis Laxalde wrote: >> >>Policy-compliant package name would be "python-numpydoc", but that >> >>could be easily confused with "python-numpy-doc". So I agree with >> >>your assessment: "python-numpydoc-sphinx" is a better for the >binary >> >>p

Re: RFS: numpydoc/0.4-1 [RFP/ITP 559916]

2012-06-12 Thread Yaroslav Halchenko
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Denis Laxalde wrote: > >>Policy-compliant package name would be "python-numpydoc", but that > >>could be easily confused with "python-numpy-doc". So I agree with > >>your assessment: "python-numpydoc-sphinx" is a better for the binary > >>package. > >if it wouldn't be "conven

Re: RFS: numpydoc/0.4-1 [RFP/ITP 559916]

2012-06-12 Thread Denis Laxalde
Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: Policy-compliant package name would be "python-numpydoc", but that could be easily confused with "python-numpy-doc". So I agree with your assessment: "python-numpydoc-sphinx" is a better for the binary package. if it wouldn't be "convention compliant" anyways -- may be

Re: RFS: numpydoc/0.4-1 [RFP/ITP 559916]

2012-06-12 Thread Denis Laxalde
Jakub Wilk wrote: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/numpydoc/numpydoc_0.4-1.dsc Minor nitpick: I'd use "debhelper (>= 8)" instead of "debhelper (>= 8.0.0)" in Build-Depends. (Sorry, it's my pet peeve!) Upstream provides some tests, please run the at build time. Done. Men

Re: RFS: numpydoc/0.4-1 [RFP/ITP 559916]

2012-06-12 Thread Yaroslav Halchenko
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Jakub Wilk wrote: > Policy-compliant package name would be "python-numpydoc", but that > could be easily confused with "python-numpy-doc". So I agree with > your assessment: "python-numpydoc-sphinx" is a better for the binary > package. if it wouldn't be "convention compliant

Re: RFS: numpydoc/0.4-1 [RFP/ITP 559916]

2012-06-12 Thread Jakub Wilk
(I don't intend to sponsor this package.) * Denis Laxalde , 2012-06-11, 20:51: dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/numpydoc/numpydoc_0.4-1.dsc Minor nitpick: I'd use "debhelper (>= 8)" instead of "debhelper (>= 8.0.0)" in Build-Depends. (Sorry, it's my pet peeve!) Upstrea

RFS: numpydoc/0.4-1 [RFP/ITP 559916]

2012-06-11 Thread Denis Laxalde
Hi, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "numpydoc" (see RFP/ITP #559916). * Package name: numpydoc Version : 0.4 Upstream Author : Pauli Virtanen and others * URL : https://github.com/numpy/numpy/tree/master/doc/sphinxext * License : BSD Secti