Re: [MoM] Packaging of python-csb - Report #4
Hi Tomás,
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 10:40:43PM +0100, Tomás Di Domenico wrote:
> So, I've finally been able to get a grasp on both DEP8 testing and the
> Python3 version. I'm sure there are many new details to fix, but
> everything seems well underway. The tests are executed correctly, and
> the Python3 version installs and works fine.
Sounds good - I have seen your commits.
> I went to upstream with the problem with the pickled files that Jakub
> brought up. It seems like those files get rebuilt when the tests run, if
> they do not exist. I asked upstream to remove them from the tarball, and
> they already did. Future versions will exclude those files, which will
> also make the package way smaller.
Fine.
> About this, would it be possible to exclude the pickled files from the
> current version? Or do I have to wait/ask for a new upstream tarball?
There is no need to wait. We frequently are observing the need to strip
files from upstream source. This is usually done in a get-orig-source
target in debian/rules. Some weeks ago I tried to gain for some
simplification of this process which is very frequently reinvented and
you know geeks do not like to reinvent the wheel over and over. The
result is an enhanced uscan script which I just advertised in my previous
mail to this list about fastqc. May be you will just have a look at this
mail and download the new uscan from
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=users/tille/devscripts.git;a=blob;f=scripts/uscan.pl;hb=HEAD
(copy it as uscan somewhere in your PATH so that it is executed before
/usr/bin/uscan.) If you do so you just need to specify the files to
remove in debian/copyright in the Files-Excluded: field and everything
should work automatically (if not ping me and I'll help.) If you do not
like this not yet official way you might need to dive into the other
get-orig-source scripts we do have to a large extend in our Vcs - but
IMHO this is learning stuff that will become outdated (the sooner the
better.)
> Another open issue I have now (at least that I'm aware of) are the docs,
> or how to go about creating a separate docs package. In particular, what
> is the structure of a docs-only package? Perhaps there's an example I
> can check?
I guess you can find a lot of examples for instance via
apt-cache search python doc | grep "^python[^[:space:]]\+-doc"
And jes, guessing from the size of the docs I think having them
separated from the python module package makes sense.
> I'd ask you to check the package and let me know whatever issues you may
> find.
I'll do so tomorrow.
> I'd then like to go for a third round of comments in the Python
> least. Speaking of which, would it be ok to write in one list and CC the
> other?
I'd like to see list cross-posting as an exception. Nobody will blame
you about this in rare cases but in most cases it is better to stick to
one list. As I said, I'm reading python-modules as well - it is
perfectly fine to stick to this list. I just wanted to have some MoM
report showing up here.
Thanks for your work on this
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: