Re: RFS: blogofile (2nd try)
* Andreas Rütten <AndreasRuetten@gmx.de>, 2011-11-27, 22:37:
http://mentors.debian.net/package/blogofile
dget -x http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/blogofile/blogofile_0.7.1-1.dsc
(I don't intend to sponsor this package.)
The binary package depend on: "python-textile, python-markdown, …,
python-docutils". Do I really need _all_ of them? Normally you write
a blog only in one markup language…
The argparse module is included in the standards library since 2.7, so
the dependency on "python-argparse" could be "python (>= 2.7) |
python-argparse".
Are the Python modules that you ship in the binary package supposed to
be used by other packages (than those built from this source package)?
If yes, then the package name should be python-blogofile. Otherwise,
please move them into a private directory.
blogofile doesn't start in a minimal chroot:
| $ blogofile
| Traceback (most recent call last):
| File "/usr/bin/blogofile", line 5, in <module>
| from pkg_resources import load_entry_point
| ImportError: No module named pkg_resources
Perhaps it's a missing dependency on python-pkg-resources?
In debian/rules, you could replace "-exec rm -f {} \;" with "-delete".
Upstream provides a test suite, please run it at build time (ideally,
using all supported Python versions).
In a few places I saw code like this:
| try:
| do_something()
| except:
| pass
This is bad, because "except:" with catch also e.g. KeyboardInterrupt.
What is blogofile.util.html_escape for? It doesn't seem to be used by
anything. (Also doesn't look particularly efficient. :P)
Please use "X-Python-Version: >= 2.6" instead of "X-Python-Version: 2.6,
2.7".
I wonder if a single script of 200 lines really warrants a separate
binary package...
But anyway, to be pedantically correct, blogofile-converters's
dependency on python should be "python (>= 2.6)", since the script uses
2.6 features.
--
Jakub Wilk
Reply to: