Bug#661664: RFS: pyswisseph/1.77.00-0-3 [ITP]
On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 06:49:46 AM Jakub Wilk wrote:
I will look into this and create a new version. It will probably take a while.
On the issue of the pdfs, those pdfs are rebuilt from source in another
package that depends on this package. References to those pdf's should be
refered to that other package. Those pdf are not distributed by this package,
they should have been deleted with the convenience code. In this case of
"Convenience copies of documentation" which is rebuilt from source in another
dependant package, I am not sure if it is good enough to note the other
package where the documentation is rebuilt from source, note the problem and
move on, or if I must turn this package into a dfsg package?
What is your opinion?
> (Please use X-Debbugs-Cc, rather than Cc, when submittig bugs. That way
> the other parties will get the mail with bug number in the subject.)
>
> I don't intend to sponsor this package, but here's my review:
>
> * Paul Elliott <pelliott@blackpatchpanel.com>, 2012-02-28, 18:32:
> > dget -x
> > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pyswisseph/pyswisseph_1.
> > 77.00-0-3.dsc
>
> Please get rid of “<645551 is the bug number of your ITP>” and “source
> package automatically created by stdeb” cruft from the changelog.
>
> “Vcs-Browser” would be more consistent and more common capitalization
> than “Vcs-browser”.
>
> I'd merge all 3 changelog entries into one, and remove of the stuff from
> it. There's no point mentioning that e.g. you added copyright file in an
> initial release. Of course you did. (But OTOH patches you added might be
> worth mentioning.)
>
> Remove ${python:Breaks}, nothing generates this substitution variable
> anymore.
>
> The package description is very bad. Please see Developer's Reference
> §6.2.3.
>
> The copyright file doesn't say where the upstream sources were obtained.
> This is serious violation of Policy §12.5.
>
> I don't understand your lintian override. Why you can't correct the
> spelling?
>
> You can remove “--buildsystem=python_distutils” from debian/rules; dh is
> able to detect the build system automatically.
>
> Please get rid of the “This file was automatically generated by stdeb”
> comment.
>
> Do not use patches to remove files. Such patches are huge and are very
> likely cause conflicts in the future. Just remove the files in
> debian/rules (but see below).
>
> The patches have “Forwarded: yes”, but were they actually forwarded? If
> yes, to who? They look Debian-specific to me.
>
> Assuming that you meant to use DEP-3 for your patch headers, and as far
> as I understand the specification, you need an empty line before the
> pseudo-header.
>
> Please regenerate pydoc/* at build time.
>
> The binary package name is wrong. It should be python-swisseph, as per
> Python Policy §2.2.
>
> Upstream seems to support Python 3, too. Please consider building a
> separate python3-swisseph package.
>
> The is no source for PDFs in the doc/ directory. You have the following
> options:
> - Ask upstream to include the source in their tarballs.
> - Repackage their tarballs.
> If you choose the latter option, you could also get rid of unneeded
> files that delete-no-longer-need-swe-files patch currently removes.
--
Paul Elliott 1(512)837-1096
pelliott@BlackPatchPanel.com PMB 181, 11900 Metric Blvd Suite J
http://www.free.blackpatchpanel.com/pme/ Austin TX 78758-3117
Reply to: