Re: python / python3 3 pybuild and bin script

On 02/01/2014 04:10 PM, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel wrote: > Hello, > > I am packaging the next version of spyder which is a python IDE. > The next version will support python3 > > so I need to add a spyder3 binary package which will contain > /usr/bin/spyder3 > > the upstream script only create /us

Re: Dependency on python-oauth2

ndeed not maintained anymore upstream, and has security problems. As a consequence, I worked out a patch for keystone so that it uses oauthlib instead. I would recommend that you do the same, and that you do not rely on oauth2. Note that the API of oauthlib is different from oauth2, even though

Re: Selecting python-flask vs python3-flask

;d downgrade the severity to wishlist (unless I completely misunderstood the purpose of this -examples package). Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/532470b7.3000...@debian.org

Re: pybuild sphinxdoc and extensions

ocalhost, and you don't really want to use it, do you? Also, are you doing like this to avoid intersphinx? In this case, why don't you just remove the intersphinx extension from conf.py? That's IMO much cleaner than just blocking the connection. I'm not sure about your "

Re: pybuild sphinxdoc and extensions

On 04/07/2014 03:39 PM, picca wrote: >> As for http_proxy='localhost', it's much better to write >> http_proxy='127.0.0.1:9', as there really could be a web proxy running >> on localhost, and you don't really want to use it, do you? > > I just used the snipset of the wiki page explaining the libra

Re: Advice on packaging of Lunatic Python

uot; will only import the *other* module). So it will be problematic. I'm not sure what's the solution in this case. Sometimes, there's unfortunately no good solution. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of

Re: sponsorship request

that the sponsoree does the same mistakes on both, so I'll have a look on the 2nd one only if the first one is cleaned and I have uploaded it. I hope this helps, thanks for contributing to Debian, Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5369d2d8.5020...@debian.org

Setting DPMT as maintainer for python-repoze.what

enough yet to do it myself: please point me to the correct documentation as I'm still not sure what I must read first). Last thing, it was my understanding that the pht file should just be removed to fix #746023. If I'm wrong, please let me know as well. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Embedded six.py in many packages: can someone add a lintian check?

sy to miss...). Also, am I the only one that believe this is a bug, and that we should do mass bug-filling? Thoughts anyone? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@

Re: Embedded six.py in many packages: can someone add a lintian check?

On 05/29/2014 01:53 AM, Julian Taylor wrote: > Also it does not seem to have a stable API, I just changed back to > embedded six in python-scipy because what we have in unstable now is not > compatible with what scipy is using now (1.2). That's a call for updating upstream code, IMO. If upstream d

Re: Embedded six.py in many packages: can someone add a lintian check?

On 05/28/2014 10:02 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > Unfortunately, it's not just six that gets vendorized. I'd be in favor of a > lintian check if it could be generalized to warn against all vendorizing. A > warning specifically about six is helpful but limited. Hi Barry, How would you implement the

Re: Python3.4 is default python3

On 05/30/2014 04:40 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On May 28, 2014, at 12:49 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> Is anyone aware of anything that would prevent dropping python3.3 from >> supported versions as soon as this transition is done? > > Nope, let's do it. I agree. The sooner we can get rid of h

Re: python3.3 removed

On 06/21/2014 08:32 AM, Ben Finney wrote: > Scott Kitterman writes: > >> python3.3 will be gone from Unstable as of the next dinstall. >> >> Thanks for everyone that helped out. > > Thanks to the team for doing the (too-often-thankless) janitorial work > to maintain a clean Python platform in De

Upload of python-networkx 1.9

the watch file fixes for the +dfsg1 handling). Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) diff -u -N -r python-networkx-1.8.1/debian/changelog trunk/debian/changelog --- python-networkx-1.8.1/debian/changelog 2014-01-18 11:26:50.0 + +++ trunk/debian/changelog 2014-06-23 12:05:18.0 + @@

Re: Upload of python-networkx 1.9

On 06/25/2014 03:46 PM, Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> * New upstream release (Closes: #750233). > > I think you meant this instead: > > * New upstream release > - Fixes test failures (Closes: #750233). > > h

Re: Upload of python-networkx 1.9

On 06/25/2014 04:04 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > and where are the SVN commits for such changes? I was waiting for the 2 days delay before doing "git svn dcommit". It's in now. Cheers, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troub

Networkx archive on pypi

to do the job: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/django_compressor/ however, it doesn't seem critical for your python module. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) P.S: Thanks a lot for writing in the Debian bug tracker about the fact that 1.9 fixed the FTBFS (Fail To Build From Source) bug. The

Re: Networkx archive on pypi

On 06/26/2014 03:25 AM, Aric Hagberg wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > Thanks for pointing out my mistake in the PyPi tarballs. > And I will fix the non-free binary blob issue so you won't have the > same problem in the next release. > > Please let me know if there is anything else we can do to help. > Tha

Re: Upload of python-networkx 1.9

On 06/26/2014 03:18 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > what about talking with upstream (which - as you can see - is pretty > responsive) about the big tarball? Well, I wrote to him, with the list as Cc. Didn't you read it? :) Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org wit

Re: Is python-django still maintained in DPMT svn?

django-* packages without support for Python 3 as well, which is annoying (I'm having the issue currently with python-django-pyscss). Would you accept that I try to work it out? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a

Re: python 3 and django (was: Is python-django still maintained in DPMT svn?)

On 06/28/2014 03:23 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 01/28/2014 10:45 PM, Luke Faraone wrote: >> I most probably did forget to push; I'll take a look later today. >> >> Thanks for the poke, Raphaël, and thanks Barry for helping with the >> package! I've be

Re: dh-python wheezy backport

On 07/01/2014 09:22 AM, Brian May wrote: > Hello, > > I copied the changes from 1.20131021-1~bpo70+1 and applied them > to 1.20140511-1 and appear to have got a working package. > > http://code.vpac.org/debian/pool/main/d/dh-python/ > > This seems to be required to get a fully functioning backpo

Re: dh_python3 inocrrect dependancy

On 07/03/2014 01:35 PM, Brian May wrote: > When trying to package python3-pipeline (see > http://bugs.debian.org/753556), I encountered a problem with the python3 > dependencies: > > dh_python3 -O--buildsystem=pybuild > I: dh_python3 pydist:181: Cannot find installed package that provides > future

Re: pillow

27;t seem like the high version dependencies are needed. I also would very much appreciate if this patch could be applied to pillow to allow easy backports. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscrib

python-wheel backport to Wheezy

o fix this correctly? (I could hack something, but I would much prefer to understand) Barry, what do you think? Your thoughts? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) P.S: Note that even if we decide that an official backport isn't appropriate, I'd like to fix the issue for myself in the best possib

Re: python-wheel backport to Wheezy

On 07/13/2014 07:08 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On July 13, 2014 6:00:58 AM EDT, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> Hi, >> >> There's more and more packages in Sid which requires python-wheel. I >> was >> wondering if it was possible to do a backport of it. It seems v

Re: Help needed to test packages with Django 1.7

On 07/23/2014 08:27 AM, Brian May wrote: > Hello, > > Thanks for you work. I very much agree, would really like to see Django > 1.7 in Jessie, even if it does break some things along the way. I don't agree with the last bit of your sentence. Django 1.7 final isn't even released upstream, and the

Re: Help needed to test packages with Django 1.7

with lots of unicode stuff. Once these are done, then this unlocks Python 3 support in maybe 40 other packages. Anyway, this was to say: I don't think it's about one *or* the other, I'm just trying to do my best to fix both, and it's not a question of time (I do have tim

Re: Help needed to test packages with Django 1.7

On 08/04/2014 11:30 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Aug 04, 2014, at 11:05 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> Well, I'm doing my best to add Python 3 support everywhere I can. > > \o/ > >> I've been doing this for months already. I know it wont be possible to f

Re: Help needed to test packages with Django 1.7

On 08/04/2014 11:30 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Aug 04, 2014, at 11:05 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> Well, I'm doing my best to add Python 3 support everywhere I can. > > \o/ > >> I've been doing this for months already. I know it wont be possible to f

Python3 search path order when building Debian package

ible. This creates more issues than it solves problems. Any idea, comment or whatever that may help would be appreciated. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) P.S: By the way, there's issues with python-oslo.utils with Python 3.4, after solving the above problem... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: Python3 search path order when building Debian package

On 08/11/2014 07:30 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Thomas Goirand, 2014-08-11] >> During the build of oslo packages for OpenStack, I'm having the issue >> that python3 seems to first look into >> /usr/lib/python3.4/dist-packages/olso, finds stuff in it, and then do >

Re: Two django packages for Debian?

dpackage then (s)he probably already have at least one package > that uses it, no? Just copy it to dpmt's git/hg/bar² repo and let others > play with it. I would need to learn dgit and git-dpm. Pointers to howto welcome! > [¹] note that, unless someone will provide a wrapper that uni

Re: Django 1.7 preparations

On 08/17/2014 10:58 AM, Brian May wrote: > On 17 August 2014 12:26, Brian May > wrote: > > On second thoughts, after reading past emails on python-oauth2 in > this group, it sounds like django-oauth-plus needs a RC bug to use > python-oauthlib in

No __init__.py for namespaced module in Python 3.4

sabling the unit tests for Python 3.4 in oslo.serialization, but this really doesn't seem to be the way to go, and I would like to find a way to fix this. Thoughts anyone? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) P.S: It was really nice to see Piotr and Barry at Debconf14. Thanks for coming, and I

Re: No __init__.py for namespaced module in Python 3.4

Hi barry, Thanks for your answer. On 09/06/2014 05:38 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Sep 05, 2014, at 11:16 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> Surprisingly, when I just do (as root): >> >> echo "" >/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/oslo/__init__.py >> >&g

Re: django 1.7 bugs

that we may as well just ignore the issue and disable the unit test... I would happily accept some more help! :) Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archi

Re: Quick update on git-dpm migration script

On 10/06/2014 03:24 PM, Stefano Rivera wrote: > Further updates: > > I used my sprint time at PyCon.ZA to poke at the migration. > I was lucky enough to have Gary van der Merwe, with deep VCS experience, > get involved, and we made some significant progress. > > http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/use

Re: Fwd: [Python-modules-commits] [python-mplexporter] 135/135: Merge pull request #30 from rainwoodman/patch-1

On 09/24/2014 10:51 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > In addition to the mail list, the commits for just one package made > #debian-python unusable a couple of times today. The KGB bot is configurable to have limits. I did that with my own KGB bot, and it works every well. On 09/24/2014 10:51 AM, Scot

Re: Keeping upstream commits separate from Debian packaging commits

ile I don't agree with this decision, I prefer to just import upstream VCS and do packaging based on tags, but I will still respect it when packaging in the DPMT. Anyone who doesn't respect what we are collectively agree on should IMO take the blame for what happened on IRC and on the comm

Re: Keeping upstream commits separate from Debian packaging commits

your debian-specific patch (just grab it from your debian/patches folder, apply to the master branch, then "git review" or git push to github/bitbucket/git-cafe/you-name-it...). Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a sub

Re: Keeping upstream commits separate from Debian packaging commits

I'm not sure how > suitable it is for the average DPMT/PAPT-maintained package. > > [1] The git repository is at > https://anonscm.debian.org/git/pkg-bitcoin/armory.git -- browse link > is https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-bitcoin/armory.git My feeling is that it'

Re: Keeping upstream commits separate from Debian packaging commits

On 10/12/2014 09:30 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> Also, during the Debconf discussion, we decided we would use the >> pristine-tar workflow, *not* using upstream VCS merge. A >> "git-import-orig" normally goes into a single commit, which I don't >> think would bother anyone (not on the list, or on

Re: Using pristine-tar

pristine-tar lead to issues. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54453b90.8090...@debian.org

Re: Keeping upstream commits separate from Debian packaging commits

keep in mind that this really is because I want the best and most efficient workflow, and the purpose is *not* to be annoying! :) Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas..

Re: Using pristine-tar

will > not necessary generate byte-identical tarballs. Same with pristine-tar if using xz... And there's also this: On 10/21/2014 11:15 AM, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Two invocations of pristine-tar will not, either, if you happen to > use a different version of tar than the one used

Re: Keeping upstream commits separate from Debian packaging commits

On 10/21/2014 01:55 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > It occurs to me too that the switch from svn to git (e.g. git-dpm) is already > a large change to current team workflow, and dropping pristine-tar might just > be too big a move to also do right now. And things should move/improve incrementally as well

Re: Python 2, Python 3, Stretch & Buster

nt 1 at the end). This is much harder to detect than just a print statement instead of function, or a wrong except or raise issue. I'd be happy to share some more links of useful stuff about porting to Python 3 (I have some more on my "other laptop" (tm)). Is there already a

Re: Source package name with "python-" or without?

o "ls", or in your QA page, on gitweb/cgit, etc. Also, not polluting the general namespace is a good idea. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5576e536.5080...@debian.org

Moving 101 packages from the OpenStack pkg group on Alioth to DPMT

it is finalized. I hope anyone committing to these new Git repository for the team will be careful enough to not just break the world in OpenStack. It's the obvious thing to do, but it's better to explicitly say it. Is there any new ETA for this to happen? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Key package: update of unittest2 & testtools in Experimental needs approval

it is currently broken, which is also a reason why it'd be nice to have python-traceback2 reviewed and approved. Unittest2 is used almost everywhere in Py3 unit tests BTW. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVnjzdAAoJENQWrR

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 09/29/2015 02:11 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: >> Are >> there any specific changes you object to > > As for the technical aspects, tests were disabled mentioning they > access internet (and from the code it is not clear at all if they do, > and I kinda doubt that) It clearly showed access to the ou

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 09/29/2015 04:02 PM, Tristan Seligmann wrote: > but I'm not sure that having someone > blindly upload my packages if they haven't worked on them before is a > good idea. If this is what you think of my upload, I don't agree with the above wording at least. On 09/29/2015 04:02 PM, Tristan Selig

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

ous problem here, which isn't even bound to the Python team. We should IMO rethink our workflow and rules, and the way we think about the Debian archive. Not just thinking about our own little square of fenced garden. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 09/30/2015 12:38 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > He knew it violated team norms and just didn't care. That's not what I wrote. I went into packages.d.o, saw DPMT, and a bit too fast, thought it was team maintained and that an upload would be accepted. Yes, I knew the rule, but no I didn't just ig

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 09/30/2015 11:15 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > so long for "Finger-pointing is pointless loss of time for everyone." > just a few lines above.. It wasn't the goal of my 2 examples.

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 09/30/2015 12:45 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > nor is uploading a package just for their own interest and then let > the maintainer fix the mistakes done. This has happened in the past, > most of the times with Thomas, that's enough. Sandro, I've done hundreds of uploads. Lots of them uploading stu

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 09/30/2015 11:15 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > yeah that's it, you care only about pkg-openstack and has no interest > to be a member of this team No ! > (as it's proved by the fact you keep > uploading general-purposes python modules under pkg-openstak umbrella) This is due to the fact we're not

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 09/30/2015 05:40 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 05:26:08PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> I've done hundreds of uploads. Lots of them uploading stuff maintained >> within the DPMT. So far, only a single person complained... > That's not real

I've been removed from the Python team

Hi, Piotr decided to remove me from the Python team. Those who don't agree (especially admins) please voice your concern. It is my view that this is an over reaction and that it should be reverted. Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: I've been removed from the Python team

On 09/30/2015 09:49 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > kindergarten ... Indeed. We all have better things to do! Thomas

Re: [DPMT] radical changes: automation, carrot and stick

On 10/02/2015 01:18 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > I think that the main problem of our team is that we have over 300 > members and only few people contribute to packages they didn't inject to > the repo (some people do not care even about those). Impressive that you write this after kicking me for

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 10/05/2015 09:37 AM, Michael Fladischer wrote: > On 2015-09-30 10:53, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> * The maintainer of mock uploaded version 1.3 to Sid, which created RC >> bugs (FTBFS) on maybe more than 20 packages currently in Sid, even >> though upstream (Robert Collins)

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

pposite thing: that I care for everything else, and that I expect everyone to do the same. > I would really like it if instead of continuing to point fingers at other > people you would engage constructively. Scott, it is my belief that you have a very wrong opinion of who I am. What you wrote here, quoting me, shows the exact opposite of what I was trying to explain. I really fail to understand how we've came to that. Maybe you could try to re-read me again, trying to step in my shoes and try to see the world from my point of view, rather than just seeing black when I'm showing white? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

to the point my belly was hurting, and I couldn't spend a good time with my kids. Now, reading this, I want to puke... Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

ld choose anyone but him. Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: mock 1.2 breaking tests (was: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental)

On 10/06/2015 02:49 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2015-10-05 23:45:57 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote: > [...] >> Upstream will *not* fix the issue, because you know, they "fixed" it in >> their CI by adding an upper version bound in the pip requirements, which >

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

e to help fix breakages after they're discovered. Is the proposal to have a CI that would rebuild packages for us against a proposed update, so it can be tested before an upload? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: managing transitions (was: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental)

On 10/05/2015 11:11 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 05, 2015, at 02:51 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> In other distributions (Red Hat and Ubuntu), everyone is aware of this >> kind of issue before uploading, and this kinds of things don't happen. > > Ubuntu a

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

You can't write this: On 10/06/2015 12:33 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > causes me to doubt the sincerity of this. and this: On 10/06/2015 02:12 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I don't think you're intentionally malicious. a few hours apart, and get away with it. Take your pick... am I an evil liar

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 10/06/2015 03:31 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > On October 5, 2015 8:42:40 PM EDT, Brian May > wrote: >> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 09:33 Scott Kitterman >> wrote: >> >>> Except in this case you not only didn't but then got defensive when >> called >>> on it. If you'd just reacted with someth

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 10/06/2015 01:43 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Tuesday, October 06, 2015 09:24:42 AM Thomas Goirand wrote: >> On 10/06/2015 02:12 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >>> As I said up thread, I think a break from the team will be helpful for you >>> to re-engage product

Re: managing transitions

On 10/06/2015 01:02 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 08:39:48AM +, Brian May wrote: >> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 18:46 Thomas Goirand wrote: >> >>> This IMO is the same topic as having a Gerrit review system (and not >>> just Git) which c

Re: mock 1.2 breaking tests

On 10/06/2015 05:26 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: >> On 2015-10-06 09:28:56 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote: >>> Master != kilo. It still means that I have to do all of the backport >>> work by myself. >> [...

Re: managing transitions

On 10/06/2015 05:42 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 06, 2015, at 08:39 AM, Brian May wrote: > >> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 18:46 Thomas Goirand wrote: >> >>> This IMO is the same topic as having a Gerrit review system (and not >>> just Git) which could do te

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 10/06/2015 06:21 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: >> I probably have more Python modules in my QA page than all the persons >> involved in this thread... *combined*! No, it's not a competition, and > > it's about quantity and not about quality then? I prefer to have more > maintainers with few packag

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 10/06/2015 11:36 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > my point is that you could argue that your packages are better > maintained than ours (less bug reports, wider Python 3 support, > newest upstream releases, more popcon users, ...) but you choose the > fact that you maintain more of them... and then

Re: pypi.debian.net offline?

On 11/11/2015 07:56 AM, Brian May wrote: > Seem to get timeout errors both on port 80 and port 443. Please be patient. It should be up by tomorrow at least.

Re: pypi.debian.net offline?

On 11/12/2015 07:05 AM, Brian May wrote: > Thomas Goirand writes: > >> On 11/11/2015 07:56 AM, Brian May wrote: >> Please be patient. It should be up by tomorrow at least. > > Something went wrong with it? With our network provider, yes. Thomas

Re: pypi.debian.net offline?

On 11/12/2015 07:05 AM, Brian May wrote: > Thomas Goirand writes: > >> On 11/11/2015 07:56 AM, Brian May wrote: >> Please be patient. It should be up by tomorrow at least. > > Something went wrong with it? Everything is back online. FYI, here's what happened. Th

Re: Any suggested procedure if upstream does not provide any build helper like setup.py

the setup.cfg in a declarative way, and there's no code to write, PBR does everything for you. There's more than 100 examples of use (and abuse) of PBR in the OpenStack world (github.com/openstack). Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Pushing a bunch of packages to jessie-backports

d take too long to do that, and a broadcast of the type I'm hereby doing is probably more efficient. I hope everyone understands it. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: Pushing a bunch of packages to jessie-backports

On 11/23/2015 09:32 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Thomas Goirand, 2015-11-23] >> FYI, I intend to push the below packages to jessie-backports, as part of >> the upload of OpenStack Liberty: >> >> alabaster contextlib2 kazoo python-cachetools python-cffi python-cliff

Re: Pushing a bunch of packages to jessie-backports

On 11/23/2015 12:34 PM, Daniele Tricoli wrote: > Hello Thomas, > > On Monday, November 23, 2015 09:20:40 AM Thomas Goirand wrote: >> If you maintain one of the above packages and want to manage the bpo >> upload yourself, please let me know ASAP. > > Thanks for bac

Re: Pushing a bunch of packages to jessie-backports

pendency was > bumped. There's already a version 1.11.3+dfsg-4~bpo8+1 of jquery in backports, which is the one I also need for my other packages. So I don't think that one is a blocker. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: Pushing a bunch of packages to jessie-backports

just because of this. The rest of your message is only provocation (for example, when you write that I don't do tests, when you perfectly know I run a CI to do functional testing). I don't think replying to it will help. Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: Pushing a bunch of packages to jessie-backports

but if it's just rebuild, >> I'm also fine if you don't push it at all. > > great, less work for me! I've just uploaded sqlalchemy 1.0.9 to jessie > backports, it was indeed just a rebuild. Thanks Piotr! Thanks for this upload. Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: Pushing a bunch of packages to jessie-backports

On 11/24/2015 07:29 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Thomas Goirand, 2015-11-24] >> If you don't say you'll maintain the packages in backports (which I >> warmly would welcome) and at the same time tell that you don't want me >> to upload to stable-backports, what

Re: Pushing a bunch of packages to jessie-backports

On 11/25/2015 12:00 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Thomas Goirand, 2015-11-24] >> Which part of it? The one where you're asking for a mail per package, or > > debdiff of what you want to upload + time for me to check it (a week, I > will respond most probably in 24h, thoug

Re: Pushing a bunch of packages to jessie-backports

On 11/26/2015 09:32 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > I hope he > will realize one package will FTBFS in jessie Instead of playing such a game, would you mind telling which package you're talking about? Or is it more fun that you just keep the issue for yourself, and then use it as a mockery, just to

Re: Pushing a bunch of packages to jessie-backports

On 11/25/2015 12:07 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: >>> debdiff of what you want to upload + time for me to check it (a week, I >>> will respond most probably in 24h, though) >> >> I'll have to repeat myself then: there's no change but an entry in > > I will not repeat myself. I already wrote why I thi

Re: Pushing a bunch of packages to jessie-backports

work with > him, I tried that for few years, he just ignores you) And again. I'm getting really tired of these gratuitous accusations even before anything happens. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: Pushing a bunch of packages to jessie-backports

On 11/27/2015 11:31 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: >> Will do. FYI, I'm still waiting for the removal of >> python-repoze.{what,what-plugins,who-plugins}, which is blocking the >> migration of Keystone, and which therefore makes my efforts useless >> (there's no point of uploading OpenStack without key

Re: Adopting factory-boy

rather a git tag workflow, you're still free to use whatever workflow you want there, as long as the package is well maintained. If you need sponsoring for this package, I can review it and upload it for you. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: Updating python-jsmin

rget to tag before releasing to PyPi, however, it's trivial to find out which commit matches the PyPi release (most of the time, a quick look at matching release and commit dates are enough to find out). Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: Use Python3 where possible

bly I should implement a new parameter to select if one wants Python 2 or Python 3 as the default implementation, to set update-alternatives priorities accordingly. A (trivial) contribution for doing this would welcome. I hope this helps, comments welcome, Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: running tests against installed version of package

this package. Hopefully, it will help you for the next one! :) Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: running tests against installed version of package

bly ignore extensions, etc. What do you mean? What extensions? Suff like pypy? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Re: running tests against installed version of package

On 04/02/2016 09:41 AM, Tiago Ilieve wrote: > Thomas, > > On 31 March 2016 at 18:49, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> Most of the time, you get by this doing: >> PYTHONPATH=$(CURDIR) python -m pytest tests > > Awesome tip! Just stumbled up on this one when imports where

Re: Test suite in github but missing from pypi tarballs

https://github.com/john-kurkowski/tldextract/pull/97 > > You might want to take a few minutes to check any Python packages you've > worked on, see if there is a test suite in the github repo that hasn't made it > to the release tarball and send a pull request to fix it. IM

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >