Bug#854682: RFS: pytest-xvfb/1.0.0-1 [ITP]

2017-02-09 Thread Ghislain Antony Vaillant
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "pytest-xvfb": * Package name: pytest-xvfb Version : 1.0.0-1 Upstream Author : Florian Bruhin * URL : https://github.com/The-Compiler/pytest-xvfb/ * License

Re: Moving off of git-dpm (Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker)

2017-02-09 Thread Nikolaus Rath
On Feb 07 2017, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Feb 07, 2017, at 10:47 AM, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > >>I know the discussion is leaning towards replacing usage of git-dpm >>with gbp-pq. I have nothing against it but, since we are talking about >>solutions for a git-centric workflow, has anyone considere

Naming convention for -doc package

2017-02-09 Thread Ghislain Vaillant
Just to get the opinion from the team, Now that new packages are targeting the Buster cycle, and that Python 2 packages should no longer be built, how should the corresponding -doc packages be named? For instance, I have a source package (pytest-qt) which builds a Python 3 binary package and its

Re: Naming convention for -doc package

2017-02-09 Thread Sandro Tosi
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > Now that new packages are targeting the Buster cycle, and that Python 2 > packages should no longer be built, this is news to me, can you point me to where this was announced? -- Sandro "morph" Tosi My website: http://sandrotosi.me/ Me

Re: Naming convention for -doc package

2017-02-09 Thread Ghislain Vaillant
On Thu, 2017-02-09 at 16:51 -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > > Now that new packages are targeting the Buster cycle, and that Python 2 > > packages should no longer be built, > > this is news to me, can you point me to where this was announced

Re: Naming convention for -doc package

2017-02-09 Thread Sandro Tosi
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > On Thu, 2017-02-09 at 16:51 -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: >> > Now that new packages are targeting the Buster cycle, and that Python 2 >> > packages should no longer be built, >> >>

Re: Moving off of git-dpm (Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker)

2017-02-09 Thread Scott Kitterman
On February 9, 2017 10:52:04 AM PST, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >On Feb 07 2017, Barry Warsaw wrote: >> On Feb 07, 2017, at 10:47 AM, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: >> >>>I know the discussion is leaning towards replacing usage of git-dpm >>>with gbp-pq. I have nothing against it but, since we are talking

Re: Moving off of git-dpm (Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker)

2017-02-09 Thread Nikolaus Rath
On Feb 10 2017, Scott Kitterman wrote: >>No. You are confusing dgit with one particular way to use it. You can >>use dgit with the maint-merge workflow mentioned above, you can use >>dgit >>with git-dpm, and you can use dgit with gbp. > > OK. So then I gather it's effectively a layer on top of 'n

Re: Moving off of git-dpm (Re: git-dpm breakage src:faker)

2017-02-09 Thread Scott Kitterman
On February 9, 2017 8:29:32 PM PST, Nikolaus Rath wrote: >On Feb 10 2017, Scott Kitterman wrote: >>>No. You are confusing dgit with one particular way to use it. You can >>>use dgit with the maint-merge workflow mentioned above, you can use >>>dgit >>>with git-dpm, and you can use dgit with gbp