Re: Bug 664759: python-tox request for review/sponsorship
On Nov 10, 2012, at 10:55 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>(I don't intend to sponsor this, sorry.)
No problem, thanks for the review.
>* Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org>, 2012-11-09, 20:27:
>>http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/python-apps/packages/tox/trunk/
>
>I see some warnings in the build log:
>
>| loading intersphinx inventory from http://docs.python.org/objects.inv...
>| WARNING: intersphinx inventory 'http://docs.python.org/objects.inv' not fetchable due to <class 'urllib2.URLError'>: <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
Interesting. I didn't see the warning because I don't get it in my sbuild
environment, but I do see the "loading..." message. I understand why this
would be a no-no for the build process, and this has come up before:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2011/07/msg00016.html
I adapted the referenced patch and added the B-D. It's now using the local
copy of objects.inv.
>| /build/tox-W107m9/tox-1.4.2/doc/index.txt:90: WARNING: toctree contains
>| reference to nonexisting document u'config-v1'
Upstream bug, reported here:
https://bitbucket.org/hpk42/tox/issue/57/doc-indextxt-refers-to-non-existent
quilt patch added.
>Furthermore, the package FTBFS if built twice in a row:
>
>| dpkg-source: error: unwanted binary file: debian/manpage/_build/doctrees/environment.pickle
>| dpkg-source: error: unwanted binary file: debian/manpage/_build/doctrees/tox-man.doctree
>| dpkg-source: error: detected 2 unwanted binary files (add them in debian/source/include-binaries to allow their inclusion).
>| dpkg-buildpackage: error: dpkg-source -b tox-1.4.2 gave error exit status 29
I *think* I've fixed this now.
>lintian emits:
>
>I: tox source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "priority" in package python-tox
>P: python-tox: no-homepage-field
>I: python-tox: possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration
These should be fixed now.
>lintian4python emits:
>
>x: tox source: missing-vcs-field vcs-svn svn://svn.debian.org/python-apps/packages/tox/trunk/
>x: tox source: missing-vcs-field vcs-browser
>http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/python-apps/packages/tox/trunk/
Fixed.
>p: python-tox: SOURCES.txt-in-binary-package
Fixed, but we really need better rationale for this in the wiki. ;)
>e: python-tox: missing-dependency-for-import pkg_resources (usr/bin/tox) =>
>python-pkg-resources
Fixed.
>(+ some boring pyflakes-* tags)
Yeah, the one remaining one is a false positive.
>I think section should be "python" not "misc"; priority should be optional.
>
>Current standards version is 3.9.4.
>
>Shouldn't you add yourself to d/copyright?
All fixed.
>The LICENSE file reads:
>| The execnet package is released under the provisions of the Gnu Public
>| License (GPL), version 2 or later.
>
>Shouldn't it be s/execnet/tox/ and s/Gnu/GNU General/?
I've reported these upstream:
https://bitbucket.org/hpk42/tox/issue/58/typos-in-license-file
>Licenses of toxbootstrap.py and tox/_verlib.py are not documented in the
>copyright file.
Fixed.
>>P.S. I know the manpage sucks;
>
>Agreed, it does.
>
>Also, I think that adding full-blown makefile just to build a single manpage
>is overkill. You could call sphinx-build manually in debian/rules
Fair enough, fixed.
>>I'm trying to find some examples of Sphinx-generated manpages, after >which I'll improve that.
>
>Take a look at... sphinx-* manpages. Dogfooding FTW! :)
Okay! Now the manpage sucks less. :)
Thanks for the review, and any re-review you might do. So, anybody want to
sponsor it?
-Barry
Reply to: