Re: [RFS] python-lockfile 0.7-2
The package has now been uploaded, but Julian gives useful feedback
which I'll respond to here.
Julian Andres Klode <jak@debian.org> writes:
> First of all, because you are not compiling anything, you don't have
> to build-depend on python-all-dev. In fact, you can simply
> build-depend on python [it's just copying the file to a directory].
Don't I need to depend on ‘python-all’? Since the package is to be
installed to *all* Python versions in Debian, not just the latest one.
Also, should the build dependency on Python be ‘Build-Depends’ or
‘Build-Depends-Indep’?
> And since you are using dh7, you can simplify your debian/rules even
> more. And using python-support instead of python-central would also
> reduce the complexity.
Thanks. I plan to migrate my packages to ‘python-support’, once the
improved 0.90 series enters ‘testing’.
> And you should also install RELEASE-NOTES as changelog.gz, as specified
> in Policy 12.7:
I considered that, but the file is quite out of date (at least four
subsequent releases without any entry in the file).
> If the upstream changelog files do not already conform to this naming
> convention, then this may be achieved either by renaming the files, or by
> adding a symbolic link, at the maintainer's discretion."
I agree that for this package, the content of ‘RELEASE-NOTES’ is
pretty much that of a changelog.
In general, though, what's the guideline for how non-changelog the
file contents can be before it's not really appropriate to use it as
the upstream changelog? Many upstream packages contain a “notes to
the user about recent releases” file, which would be more appropriate
as ‘NEWS’ in a Debian package.
> BTW, have you considered to use the original license for your
> packaging as well?
For the packaging work which isn't modifying the upstream work, I
intend to continue using GNU GPLv2+.
> Because the time you add a patch to your package, the combination of
> both is GPL licensed as well. Using the same license as the upstream
> helps people to detect the correct license of the resulting work in
> an easier manner (and upstream maybe likes you more if you use the
> same license).
This is the first package where I've used ‘debian/patches/’; I hadn't
thought about this issue. Thank you, you've convinced me that
‘debian/patches/*’ will be under the same license terms as the
upstream work in any future release.
> Last but not least, I prefer to sponsor packages using a single
> revision for every upload made to Debian.
Even if the ‘foo-x.y.z-3_source.changes’ contains all changes
beginning with ‘foo-x.y.z-1’, as I've done with this package?
I must agree with others in this forum that it's easier to track the
differences between different releases if they actually have different
release numbers.
> And before I forget to ask, why do you want this package to get into
> Debian?
The upstream author is making an effort to provide a standard
interface for Python lockfile semantics, which are currently rather
fragmented in the standard library; I think this implementation and
interface is good, and want to see this succeed.
Also, I intend to make use of this package as a dependency for another
one of my packages in future.
> debian/rules:
> - There is a char in line 23, which should not be there
Normal white space: ASCII FF, a page break. I use them because they
are useful for navigating a text file “by page” in the editor.
> debian/copyright:
> - Update to the latest revision of the specification
I have been following the progress of the specification, and haven't
seen any format changes that would affect any copyright file I work
on. Can you point out the changes that affect this copyright file?
> - Indent with one space, not with 4 spaces
What's the reasoning for that? Any indentation is sufficient for
conforming with the format specification (since it's sufficient for
conforming with the RFC2822 field format). Given the choice, I prefer
to indent with 4 columns.
Thanks very much for your feedback on my work.
--
\ “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death |
`\ your right to say it.” —Evelyn Beatrice Hall, _The Friends of |
_o__) Voltaire_, 1906 |
Ben Finney
Reply to: