pybuild leaves empty directories in python3 debug packages

Dear Python packagers, I am currently maintaining two Python packages (pyfftw and pynfft), which I have modernised using pybuild. For both packages, pybuild builds the Python 2 and 3 packages, their respective debug versions and the common documentation. The resulting packages are "lintian -i" cl

Re: Help needed to test packages with Django 1.7

Hi, Barry Warsaw: > >- beautifulsoup > > Would it be better to port to dependencies to beautifulsoup4 which is already > Python 3 compatible upstream and available in Debian as python{,3}-bs4? The > upstream docs claim it's pretty compatible, albeit with some deprecated > (non-PEP 8 compliant) n

Re: Two django packages for Debian?

On Aug 06, 2014, at 08:47 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote: >(That said I'm also rather annoyed by the fact that the team hasn't switched >to git yet.) We've had these discussions on this mailing list before, but I think we should discuss it at Debconf. While obviously we won't have full representation

Re: Two django packages for Debian?

On 6 August 2014 14:18, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Aug 06, 2014, at 08:47 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > >>(That said I'm also rather annoyed by the fact that the team hasn't switched >>to git yet.) > > We've had these discussions on this mailing list before, but I think we should > discuss it at Debc

Re: Two django packages for Debian?

> I am on the edge. I prefer dgit and I would love to try them all before we make a decision¹ If one wants us to consider XYZ, please send a link to test repo and a list of commands that will let us deal f.e. with such problems: * how can I fetch foo sources? what about updating all packages in

Re: policy for source package names

Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Aug 05, 2014, at 04:09 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > >> I think it is a good practice to make the source package name the same as the >> binary package name as long is there isn't a good reason to do otherwise. So >> with any source package that produces one binar

Re: Two django packages for Debian?

On 06/08/14 04:25, Brian May wrote: > On 6 August 2014 03:11, Matthew Vernon > wrote: > > I've packaged up django-grappelli and django-stronghold (since we have > need for them at work). I think my debianisations are sane, but I've > done them in git not sub

Re: Two django packages for Debian?

Hi, On 06/08/14 07:47, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 05 Aug 2014, Matthew Vernon wrote: >> https://git.csx.cam.ac.uk/x/ucs/u/mcv21/django-grappelli.git >> https://git.csx.cam.ac.uk/x/ucs/u/mcv21/django-stronghold.git > [...] >> Naturally, I'd like to upload these as maintained by >> py

Re: Two django packages for Debian?

Hi Matthew, On Wed, 06 Aug 2014, Matthew Vernon wrote: > Is 1.7 released yet? At least Grappelli only aims to work with released > versions, so I think it's currently only 1.6-compatible. I'd expect > 1.7-support to be along once that's been out for a bit. 1.7 will be out in a few days/weeks and

Re: Help needed to test packages with Django 1.7

On 23 July 2014 15:58, Brian May wrote: > You are expected to do all database migrations with Django 1.6, then > upgrade to Django 1.7 > Some more thoughts. Are there any packages in Debian that attempt to automatically do database migrations on upgrade? If, not, that is good. Will solve the p