Re: Autopkgtest for prodigal (#890783)
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 01:26:18PM +0000, Liubov Chuprikova wrote:
> I have finished and pushed an *autopkgtest *for *prodigal
> *and also updated
> to the resent standards (by analogy with those changes you've made for
Very good. You seem to gain for extra scoring points. ;-)
BTW, when adapting debhelper you need to change two things:
d/compat (I did so)
d/control (which you did)
> Please, have a look at this commit
I'll check soon.
> I included a genome sequence from NCBI as test data. Should I indicate the
> source of this data somewhere in the package (e.g., in Readme.tests)?
I think the best place would be debian/copyright since a data file
should come with a license. I would say something like
Copyright: yyyy-yyyy Copyright-Owner
This file was obtained by
would be the most precise form we could use.
> Could you please help me with *lintian* messages 1
> <https://lintian.debian.org/tags/hardening-no-fortify-functions.html> and 2
I consider this a false positive - feel free to ignore (but extra
points that you care for the lintian info!)
Pushed a fix for the hardening options.
> I try not to
> be neglectful about *E *and *W* flags, but there are always some
> information messages. Should I be worried about them?
I usually try to get rid of these to some extend. Sometimes I'm fixing
even spellings in quilt patches. I'm doing so if I consider "my time
well spent". The latter is not always the case. Two reasons would be:
1. Upstream is dead any nobody will care (so my patches will not
become invalid by frequent upstream updates)
2. Upstream is very active and I have good reasons to assume that
they will care and take over the patch (in this case I decide
between quilt patches and using the issue tracker of upstream.
The short answer about lintian issues is: It depends.
> With regards,
I'm very happy about your work and your extra care that reaches
beyond the actual task to write tests.