Hello Andreas,
Thanks for the nitpicking!
I've had a moment of inactivity with this package, so I forgot why the
patch was there. I now remember the patch I put there simply disables an
erroneous assertion:
AssertionError: Tuples differ: (3030000, 2) != (3030000, 2,
void(b'\x00\x00\x00\x00'))
I did this, and dh_missing, to speed up the packaging and should have
really removed those before I emailed. Although, I am not sure how I
can contact upstream and should have just written an email here about
it. I still think this is a very trivial assertion issue, and the tuples
compared are very similar with the exception of the extra void(...)
element. Out of 63 tests, maybe it's still worth keeping the patch
The first two values are still the same - so it is worth comparing atleast these values instead of disabling altogether, right?
(given I add the description) until a future fix, or someone in the team
can rectify this. What do you suggest?
I dug in a bit - it looks like that there's an issue with typecasting in the code. Upstream can shed more light on this,
it makes sense to open an issue IMO.
Also, I've pushed in the above mentioned 'fix' (?) and a couple of other minor changes, please $git pull :)
As for the manpage, the only other method really is writing manpages for
the two scripts. Apart from the spelling mistakes which can be fixed,
the manpage has quite a featureful and meaningful content of both the
scripts and the library usage - although I agree this is a replication
of the HTML documentation. Do you suggest I simply just write the
manpages for the two scripts?
You can do that, but to save your effort you might consider using ronn[1] or marked-man.
Kind Regards,
Nilesh