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

Re: RFS: pyecm

On the Python policy subject, I was figuring that I didn't need to follow Python policy as my program runs as a script and does not provide .py modules for use with the import command. You could of course import it by copying it first, but that is not its intent. Am I right in this assumption or do I still need to make my script available as a python module via Python Policy?

I will change the deb-helper entries and remove the comments... thanks.


Ted Percival wrote:
I think you can re-upload a package over the existing one on mentors. If
not, you can delete the old one via the web interface.

It would be nice if you re-upload with the new description, but it is
not necessary.

It is a good idea for discussions like this to be made to the -mentors
list. I have taken the liberty of replying to the list so my further
comments are made public.

I had a brief look at your package and noticed a couple of things:

- Your package should be updated for the new Python policy

- Many sponsors like to have commented-out debhelper entries in the
debian/rules file removed altogether.

A couple of useful sponsorship checklists are:
- http://people.debian.org/~neilm/sponsorship.html
- http://people.debian.org/~mpalmer/sponsorship_checklist.html

(Not a Debian Developer)

Martin Kelly wrote:
That makes sense... will do. Do I need to delete the package from
mentors.debian.net and then re-upload it or just change the description
before a sponsor accepts it?


Ted Percival wrote:
Martin Kelly wrote:
It builds these binary packages:
pyecm - Factors large numbers (<= 50 digits) using ECM (Elliptic Curve
I suggest changing the short description to:

  Factors large numbers (up to 50 digits) using the Elliptic Curve
  Method (ECM)

And possibly even leaving off the "(ECM)".

My quick reasoning for this is that "up to" is more readable than "<=",
and that the expanded version of the acronym should come before the
acronym itself.


Reply to: