Greetings.
I've recently joined the Debian Med team, and am currently trying to
package my first project, the CSB bioinformatics toolbox [1]. CSB is
similar to the already packaged Biopython group of modules, but dealing
exclusively with the structural side of bioinformatics. This is the
reason wh
Thank you very much for your input, Jakub and Dmitry. I'll start working
on those changes right away. And yes, it would be very nice to try and
get a Python3 version up. In fact, I'm quite interested in learning how
to manually write the code, without dh (though I foresee it will take me
some time
On 07/11/12 16:43, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Tomás Di Domenico , 2012-11-07, 12:30:
>> About the different versions in the git repository and the upstream
>> package, that is actually my fault. I checked out the code from the
>> upstream Mercurial repository and built the
Right, that's what I meant. Poor wording on my side, sorry about that.
Thanks!
On 07/11/12 17:25, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Tomás Di Domenico wrote:
>> Also, out of curiosity, is there ever the case where you will build a package
>> agains
Thanks, Thomas, that's a great resource. I had been looking at some
files from existing Python 3 packages, but that makes it clearer.
I'll now focus on wrapping up the Python 2 package, and then I'll move
on to the Python 3 version.
Thanks again!
On 08/11/12 15:28, Thomas Kluyver wrote:
> On 8 N
I clumsily forgot to post a reference to the package repository [1] in
my previous message. My apologies.
Tomás
[1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debian-med/python-csb.git;a=summary
On 12/11/12 15:34, Tomás Di Domenico wrote:
> Greetings, all.
>
> After the very helpful
Greetings, all.
After the very helpful replies I received to my first message about
packaging the CSB library, I'm now kindly requesting a second round of
comments on the state of the package.
With the goal of having a clean repo to start with, but also willingly
repeating some steps to better un
On 13/11/12 21:17, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Tomás Di Domenico , 2012-11-12, 15:34:
>> * Rebuilt the package with an upstream release tarball
>
> Much better now. :)
>
>> * Changed debian/* license to MIT, matching upstream's
>
> DEP-5-compliant short license
Sorry for the late reply, and thanks to everyone who contributed to this
thread.
On 15/11/12 09:01, Andreas Tille wrote:
> If Jakub wrote *ideally* than he most probably intended to write that we
> should try to do so but there might be some good reasons to derive from
> this ideal situation. I
Greetings, all! Here I am again looking for guidance on my first
packaging attempt.
Thanks to Dmitry's help, I got the DEP8 testing in place. I have also
removed the pickled files that Jakub detected: they are generated upon
runing the tests if they don't exists, and they will be removed from
futu
Greetings, all.
I'm trying to get the docs for my python-csb package to build from
source. I've declared the binary package in debian/control along with
the dependency to python-epydoc (>= 3.0.1-8~), and added a rule for
executing epydoc. The problem is that git-buildpackage tries to install
pytho
On 14/12/12 18:36, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> I have no idea how git-buildpackage works but... perhaps it's time to
> run apt-get update?
Well, I have no problems in my installation, it's just on the "vainilla"
environment setup by git-buildpackage.
I suppose I'll have to try and understand what exact
On 16/12/12 08:30, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> I see git-buildpackage depends on cowbuilder, which depends on
> pbuilder. So that "vanilla" environment is probably pbuilder. "sudo
> pbuilder update" will update it.
Thanks for the insight! "pbuilder update" did not do the trick, but
"cowbuilder update
Greetings, all.
First and foremost, thanks to everyone who replied to my previous
messages. With your comments I've been able to generate binary packages
for Python2, Python3 and docs, to build the docs from source, and to run
automated tests.
Anyway, I have nothing specific to ask this time arou
14 matches
Mail list logo
