[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [MoM] lefse migration to python 3

Hi Shayan,

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 01:37:01PM +0100, Shayan Doust wrote:
> Thanks for the run-through of this package.

Thanks to you.
> When I started porting this package, I ran all the binaries to have a
> baseline of what to expect as "normal functionality". At that time, it
> was "No module named 'lefse'", which I assumed this to be "normal" as
> maybe lefse needed integration and not direct execution. I assumed that
> it being uploaded to unstable that it passed quality assurance, however
> some things always slip through which is understandable.
> Actually, lucky that I picked this package because I would rather have
> this rectified now than any later.

> > Once the script was running I realised that some Build-Depends were
> > missing.  I now added debian/createmanpages to create manpages for each
> > script (+some manual editing).  That way at least each script was
> > running once.
> With this package already being in unstable, I refrained from using a
> clean environment just to significantly speed up the build process so
> not realising missing build-depends slipped through. That reminds me, a
> commit persists on my side for the phyx package which has createmanpages
> but no generated man pages included.

I've observed your commits to phyx but did not acted upon it since you
did not confirmed that you are ready here.
> > Would you volunteer to write some autopkgtest - even if it would be
> > very simple to just call the script?
> I'd gladly volunteer.


I would have uploaded but I get:

run_lefse comparative pass
format_input comparative pass
lefse2circlader comparative pass
plot_cladogram comparative fail

No time to check this in more detail right now.  Please git pull for
some minor changes of mine (DEP3 and spelling).

> End users are not always the reliable source of information. Most people
> want something that "works", so you'll find people installing the
> software, seeing that it doesn't work and looking elsewhere. Unless you
> have a higher margin of a sustained userbase, the ordinary population
> tends to not bother with bug reports and following up on a software.
> Could be those people ended up compiling from source instead.

I'm aware of this - but I wonder whether this really small contribution
compared to all those free software code served by us couldn't be
expected.  I know ... probably not.  But I might be permitted to dream a

Kind regards



Reply to: