RFS: pyxdg 0.24-1
Hello, I'd like to request a sponsor to upload a new version of pyxdg. This is essentially the same as an earlier RFS for 0.23-1, but with a new upstream version. Package name: pyxdg Version : 0.24-1 Upstream Author : Sergey Kuleshov ; Heinrich Wendel ; Thomas Kluyver URL : http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/pyxdg License : LGPL-2 Section : python Changelog: pyxdg (0.24-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream version + Python 3 support (closes: #591017) + Test suite * Convert packaging to use dh_python2 (closes: #637154) It builds these binary packages: python-xdg - Python 2 library to access freedesktop.org standards python3-xdg - Python 3 library to access freedesktop.org standards In the DPMT SVN repository: http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/python-modules/packages/pyxdg/ Thanks, Thomas
Re: RFS: pyxdg 0.24-1
On 6 November 2012 11:14, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > Hello, > > I'd like to request a sponsor to upload a new version of pyxdg. This is > essentially the same as an earlier RFS for 0.23-1, but with a new upstream > version. > Can you add an autopkgtest that runs the upstream testsuite? Regards, Dmitrijs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/canbhlugn2rdw8inyoux9ocovhvxbutrwuapi3ett+41k4of...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: pyxdg 0.24-1
(Resending to the list - sorry) On 6 November 2012 12:36, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > On 6 November 2012 12:03, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: >> >> Can you add an autopkgtest that runs the upstream testsuite? > > > I've had a go - can you have a glance at the attached patch? If it looks > OK, I'll commit it. > > Thanks, > Thomas >
Re: RFS: pyxdg 0.24-1
On 6 November 2012 12:36, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > On 6 November 2012 12:03, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: >> >> Can you add an autopkgtest that runs the upstream testsuite? > > > I've had a go - can you have a glance at the attached patch? If it looks OK, > I'll commit it. > Looks good. Commit and I will sponsor your package. Regards, Dmitrijs. pyxdg_add_autopkgtest.patch Description: Binary data
Re: RFS: pyxdg 0.24-1
On 6 November 2012 12:54, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > Looks good. Commit and I will sponsor your package. > Done. Thanks, Dmitrijs. Thomas
Re: RFS: pyxdg 0.24-1
On 6 November 2012 12:55, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > On 6 November 2012 12:54, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: >> >> Looks good. Commit and I will sponsor your package. > > > Done. Thanks, Dmitrijs. > I am thinking to upload to experimental instead of unstable. It's a few upstream releases jump and a python3 package is introduced. This makes this changes unsuitable for unstable considering that we are currently frozen and these changes are not appropriate for wheezy at this time. Is that ok with you? Or did you intend to upload into unstable? Regards, Dmitrijs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/canbhluidottjeo__+gns-ns1xuobqtg28qy69feznajyxmd...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: pyxdg 0.24-1
On 6 November 2012 13:18, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > I am thinking to upload to experimental instead of unstable. It's a > few upstream releases jump and a python3 package is introduced. > This makes this changes unsuitable for unstable considering that we > are currently frozen and these changes are not appropriate for wheezy > at this time. > Is that ok with you? Or did you intend to upload into unstable? > That's fine by me. I see myself primarily as the upstream here, offering the package to Debian to use as you will. In that case, I'll submit it separately to Ubuntu, as it won't be synced from experimental. Thanks for letting me know. Best wishes, Thomas
Re: RFS: pyxdg 0.24-1
On 6 November 2012 14:09, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > On 6 November 2012 13:58, Dmitry Shachnev wrote: >> >> It won't be _automatically_ synced, but you can file a sync request: >> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SyncRequestProcess. >> >> Or Dmitrijs will sync it for you :) > > > Great, thanks Dmitry. > > Dmitrijs, let me know if you're happy to do the sync - otherwise I can make > a request. I have a small white board with stuff to sync =) as there is ~6hour delay until I can do it. Cool, will upload & sync. Regards, Dmitrijs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CANBHLUhZ3F_BNAzLsOLpTqc_oTi+G=yscse7cpvgjvrpens...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Advise on packaging a new Python module
* Tomás Di Domenico , 2012-11-04, 15:43: 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 why it seemed like a project for the Med team. I have already set up the package in a git repository [2], and it seems to be in pretty good shape, according to Andreas Tille, my mentor. Laszlo Kajan, a member of the Med team, advised me to ask for help to the Python team, and particularly to Jakub Wilk, who's helped him in the past. His suggestion is that if the module is acceptable, it may be worth it to have the maintainer changed from the Med team to the Python team. I feel like I've been just called to the blackboard. ;) [2] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debian-med/python-csb.git I didn't play with the package for very long, because I couldn't build the source package. It looks like contents of the repository didn't match contents of the upstream tarball (which I downloaded with uscan), making dpkg-source abort due to upstream changes. The diff between the two is huge (664 files changed, 27972 insertions, 21422 deletions); it contains e.g.: -__version__ = '1.1.0.463' +__version__ = '1.1.0.507' Did upstream release a new version without changing tarball name? :( This package requires Python >= 2.6, and since 2.5 is a supported version in squeeze, so this should be declared in debian/control. Please add: X-Python-Version: >= 2.6 to the source paragraph. To be pedantically correct, build-dependency on python-all should be versioned: >= 2.6.6-3~ (see dh_python2 manpage). Current standards version is 3.9.4. Note that lintian doesn't know it yet, so you'll have to live with a spurious warning. The new Policy version made build-arch and build-indep targets mandatory; dh support for these targets was implemented in debhelper 8.1.0, so don't forget to bump the build-dependency. It looks like upstream supports Python 3.X. You may consider supporting it in Debian, too. If you choose to do so, please build a separate binary package python3-csb. Beware that dh doesn't support building/installing Python 3.X modules, so you would have to write the code yourself. I would advise you against using a more restrictive license for debian/* that upstream uses, like you currently do. -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121106212752.ga4...@jwilk.net
