Re: python3-scanpy 1.6.0 patched, could you take a look?
thanks for looking into scanpy.
On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 10:54:30PM +0800, Robbi Nespu wrote:
> Hi Steffen Moeller and Debian Med,
> I patched python3-scanpy 1.6.0-2 on salsa, not sure it does look good or
> not. Could you or anyone take a look?
At first we should consider the name of the source package. If this
software is just a Python module (and thus we only create python3-scanpy
binary package and no additional scanpy package) I'd recommend to rename
the source package to python-scanpy (and move the repository accordingly
to python-scanpy). Steffen, you seem to know that software - so what do
> * blocker 1.6.0-1 removed
> * add missing dependencies
> * fixed (patched) test file failure during execution
Your changes are sensible - but please do not create another changelog
entry for this. The file debian/changelog is to record changes compared
to the previous Debian package upload. If there was no previous package
we stick to
scanpy (1.6.0-1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
and for the first upload the only entry here should be
* Initial release (Closes: #970887)
(nothing else). Speaking about this: We should not leave anything that
has target distribution UNRELEASED inside the changelog. Please always
edit inside the UNRELEASED changelog entry - and it will be set to
unstable once the package will be uploaded. Users might read only the
latest changelog entry and will miss changes "hidden" under UNRELEASED.
In other words: The UNRELEASED "target distribution" is just for the
team members to know that a package is unreleased - not for the users.
> Look like python3-legacy-api-wrap still missing on sid (reason why
> pipeline are failed), but I clone the salsa repo, build it and set
> local apt list (to take successfully legacy-api-wrap build) into my chroot
> Currently legacy-api-wrap still not available on sid, I think the maintainer
> already push to ftp (check attachment) or maybe my understanding of
> uploading process are wrong.
I think you interpreted Diane correctly (from what I can read in the
> p/s: I am newbie, so actually I not sure should I update the package to
> newer version as upstream or settle up the issue on existing one first.
> Please leave useful details so I can catch-up my learning process :)
IMHO we should always upload the latest upstream version - except if we
have very good reasons to stick to some older version. So I'd recommend
on this repository ... and afterwards strip down debian/changelog as I
Hope this helps
>  https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/scanpy/
>  https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/scanpy/-/pipelines/240555
>  https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/legacy-api-wrap
> Email : Robbi Nespu <robbinespu AT SPAMFREE gmail DOT com>
> PGP fingerprint : D311 B5FF EEE6 0BE8 9C91 FA9E 0C81 FA30 3B3A 80BA
> PGP key : https://keybase.io/robbinespu/pgp_keys.asc
> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 09:19:45 -0700
> From: Diane Trout <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: Robbi Nespu <email@example.com>
> Subject: Re: Debian python - legacy-api-wrap
> On Fri, 2021-03-19 at 22:41 +0800, Robbi Nespu wrote:
> > Hello Diane Trout,
> > I saw your ITP here for "legacy-api-wrap" package.
> > Do you have any update about this?
> I am a slacker who forgets to upload things?
> I just made a repository
> And uploaded it to NEW
> dput ftp-master legacy-api-wrap_1.2-1_amd64.changes
> Uploading legacy-api-wrap using ftp to ftp-master (host:
> ftp.upload.debian.org; directory: /pub/UploadQueue/)
> running allowed-distribution: check whether a local profile permits
> uploads to the target distribution
> running protected-distribution: warn before uploading to distributions
> where a special policy applies
> running checksum: verify checksums before uploading
> running suite-mismatch: check the target distribution for common errors
> running gpg: check GnuPG signatures before the upload
> Uploading legacy-api-wrap_1.2-1_amd64.buildinfo
> Uploading python3-legacy-api-wrap_1.2-1_all.deb
> Uploading legacy-api-wrap_1.2-1_amd64.changes