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

Re: RFS: django-auth-ldap

Hi Micael!

On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 09:50:04AM +0200, Michael Fladischer wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Dear mentors,
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "django-auth-ldap".
> * Package name    : django-auth-ldap
>   Version         : 1.0.3-1
>   Upstream Author : Peter Sagerson <psagers@ignorare.net>
> * URL             : http://pypi.python.org/pypi/django-auth-ldap/
> * License         : BSD
>   Section         : python
> It builds these binary packages:
> python-django-auth-ldap - Django LDAP authentication backend
> The package appears to be lintian clean.
> The upload would fix these bugs: 575817
> My motivation for maintaining this package is:
> I'm using this backend in several Django installations to allow users to
> authenticate against campus LDAP servers.
> The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> - - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/django-auth-ldap
> - - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
> main contrib non-free
> - - dget
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/django-auth-ldap/django-auth-ldap_1.0.3-1.dsc

Looks quite good on first look (I'll dig a bit more before sponsoring)
however there are some small things I've noticed:

 * Do you really need to build-depend on python-ldap? The package
   seems to build quite the same without.
 * Your dh_pysupport override seems to be a no-op, "dh --before
   dh_pysupport install ; find debian/ -name PKG-INFO" doesn't find
   anything (or is that a once python2.6 is default thing?)
 * The BSD license shipped in common licenses is, unfortunately, only
   applicable if you have software with the copyright hold by "The
   Regents of the University of California." which your package isn't
   right? Usually for BSD the whole license is copied. Additionally
   the one in common-licenses is the 3-clause BSD license while your
   programm seems to use the 2-clause one?
 * Your debian/docs is empty, better remove it?

 -- some minor remarks mostly my personal opinion --

 * Your debian/pyversions says 2.5- is there any reason for that? The
   package docs say 2.3- (not that the package is likely to live in a
   environment with anything pre-2.5 being default)
 * I've found it quite good to have package + packaging under the same
   license. Of course that's totally up to your preference
 * Cool you have a test implemented!



/"\  ASCII Ribbon : GPG-Key ID: 0xD49AE731
\ /    Campaign   : CaCert Assurer
 X   against HTML : Debian Developer
/ \   in eMails   : http://www.debian.org/


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: