Bug#993499: RFS: python-marshmallow-polyfield/5.10-1 -- marshmallow extension for polymorphic fields
On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 05:06:59 +0200 Jeroen Ploemen wrote: > It does. Copyrights have expiry dates too, so the most recent year matters. Thanks - I updated the copyright line in order to include the most recent year as well, along with the comment. -- Diego M. Rodriguez
Bug#993499: RFS: python-marshmallow-polyfield/5.10-1 -- marshmallow extension for polymorphic fields
On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 14:09:54 +0200 "Diego M. Rodriguez" wrote: > On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 11:30:24 +0200 Jeroen Ploemen > wrote: > > In that case, for lack of a better option, the upstream git commits > > could serve as a basis for the years. > > Noted - in this instance, 2015 is also the date of the initial git > commit in the upstream repo. Could you let me know if your mention of > "years" implies also declaring the year of the last commit for this > release in d/copyright (ie. 2015-2021)? It does. Copyrights have expiry dates too, so the most recent year matters. pgpR1HPBTUVmN.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#993499: RFS: python-marshmallow-polyfield/5.10-1 -- marshmallow extension for polymorphic fields
On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 11:30:24 +0200 Jeroen Ploemen wrote: > In that case, for lack of a better option, the upstream git commits could > serve as a basis for the years. Noted - in this instance, 2015 is also the date of the initial git commit in the upstream repo. Could you let me know if your mention of "years" implies also declaring the year of the last commit for this release in d/copyright (ie. 2015-2021)? Thanks, -- Diego M. Rodriguez
Bug#993499: RFS: python-marshmallow-polyfield/5.10-1 -- marshmallow extension for polymorphic fields
On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 10:53:40 +0200 "Diego M. Rodriguez" wrote: > > copyright: where does the 2015 upstream copyright year come from? > > I think it was added during the initial packaging based on the year of > the first upstream public release, but indeed there is no explicit > mention of 2015 in the upstream sources. I have added a comment to > d/copyright, but I'm not sure if this is the best approach - any > guidance would be welcome. In that case, for lack of a better option, the upstream git commits could serve as a basis for the years. pgptJxYXe4pcW.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#993499: RFS: python-marshmallow-polyfield/5.10-1 -- marshmallow extension for polymorphic fields
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo Hello Jeroen, and thanks for the review! > copyright: where does the 2015 upstream copyright year come from? I think it was added during the initial packaging based on the year of the first upstream public release, but indeed there is no explicit mention of 2015 in the upstream sources. I have added a comment to d/copyright, but I'm not sure if this is the best approach - any guidance would be welcome. > control: > * why hardcode the dependency on python3-marshmallow for the binary pkg? Unintentional - and fixed. > * the build-dep on the same also seems unneeded (at least unless/until > tests are re-enabled, see watch) > > watch: consider using github for upstream releases, as the files > published there include the upstream testsuite missing on pypi. And then > put those tests to good use, of course :) Switched to using github releases, re-enabling the tests during build and also adding autopkgtests. Thanks, -- Diego M. Rodriguez
Bug#993499: RFS: python-marshmallow-polyfield/5.10-1 -- marshmallow extension for polymorphic fields
Control: tags -1 moreinfo On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 11:09:06 +0200 "Diego M. Rodriguez" wrote: > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: normal > > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package > "python-marshmallow-polyfield": copyright: where does the 2015 upstream copyright year come from? control: * why hardcode the dependency on python3-marshmallow for the binary pkg? * the build-dep on the same also seems unneeded (at least unless/until tests are re-enabled, see watch) watch: consider using github for upstream releases, as the files published there include the upstream testsuite missing on pypi. And then put those tests to good use, of course :) Please remove the moreinfo tag (and CC me directly) once you have an updated package ready. pgpVL1CbIZy7Z.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#993499: RFS: python-marshmallow-polyfield/5.10-1 -- marshmallow extension for polymorphic fields
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "python-marshmallow-polyfield": * Package name: python-marshmallow-polyfield Version : 5.10-1 Upstream Author : Matt Bachmann * URL : https://github.com/Bachmann1234/marshmallow-polyfield * License : Apache-2.0 * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/python-marshmallow-polyfield Section : python It builds those binary packages: python3-marshmallow-polyfield - marshmallow extension for polymorphic fields To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/python-marshmallow-polyfield/ Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-marshmallow-polyfield/python-marshmallow-polyfield_5.10-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: python-marshmallow-polyfield (5.10-1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium . [ Ondřej Nový ] * d/control: Update Maintainer field with new Debian Python Team contact address. * d/control: Update Vcs-* fields with new Debian Python Team Salsa layout. . [ Diego M. Rodriguez ] * New upstream version 5.10 * d/watch: version 4, use signature * d/control: bump Standards-Version to 4.6.0 (no changes needed) * d/control: set architecture to all Regards, -- Diego M. Rodriguez
