[MoM] Status (Was: Second round of advise on packaging python-csb)
- To: Debian Med Project List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [MoM] Status (Was: Second round of advise on packaging python-csb)
- From: Andreas Tille <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 16:31:34 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20121206153134.GB31953@an3as.eu>
- In-reply-to: <50AF9BFF.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <CAKimPHWAAV+iE4T7T9WjLpuictyhKE_rNVtUH4wiF2HC+9ynSg@mail.gmail.com> <20121107094935.GA2965@jwilk.net> <509A4661.email@example.com> <20121108141530.GO17843@an3as.eu> <CAOvn4qiztQGnJj1MXd+BKh7CnN=hswk6ME-zzg5QdbZp3AYOtw@mail.gmail.com> <50A108E7.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20121113201756.GA348@jwilk.net> <50A3BBDB.email@example.com> <20121115080131.GA5963@an3as.eu> <50AF9BFF.firstname.lastname@example.org>
because we started the MoM project here on the Debian Med list I'm
quoting the last message about your MoM package (which actually was on
the python-modules list) here and wonder whether you could give some
status update. It would be great if you would give some succcess /
failure / blocker report. Perhaps we could finally get some first
package out even if not all wishlist features (like testing / Python
3.0) might be implemented yet.
Thanks for your work on this
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 04:53:35PM +0100, Tomás Di Domenico wrote:
> Sorry for the late reply, and thanks to everyone who contributed to this
> On 15/11/12 09:01, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > If Jakub wrote *ideally* than he most probably intended to write that we
> > should try to do so but there might be some good reasons to derive from
> > this ideal situation. I admit, I usually try to rebuild the docs in my
> > packages and I do at least verify that I can *reproduce* all the docs.
> > However, sometimes there are good reasons to simply use the
> > autogenerated docs from upstream. Without having checked the thing
> > myself your description sounds as if it could be the case here.
> > IMHO the question whether you rebuild the docs from source and the fact
> > whether the docs will end up in a separate binary package are
> > orthogonal. I'm a fan if separate docs and I think 24MB are some good
> > reason to do this.
> Great, seems like a separate package would be the way to go then.
> > I agree with those other to people who answered this part of your mail
> > that having the tests packaged and thus ready for testing by the user
> > at the installation target (which is simply different from testing at
> > upstream side) is a very good idea and should be approached. Please
> > also regard Jakub's (?) hint to DEP8.
> Right. I've contacted upstream regarding the pickled files Jakub brought
> up in a previous message. I'm also looking at the autopkgtest docs I can
> find, trying to figure it out. Could anyone point me to some python
> packages using this kind of automated testing? If you'd rather teach me
> how to fish, I'd be very interested in learning about the best way to
> search packages for specific content in the "debian/*" files. In this
> case, for example, search for "XS-Testsuite: autopkgtest" and "python"
> or something of the sort. (Wishful thinking, maybe?)
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com
> Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50AF9BFF.firstname.lastname@example.org