Re: RFS: python-gearman
Hi Sandro,
Thanks for your reply!
On 04-02-11 16:35, Sandro Tosi wrote:
Hi Oxan,
you decided to put the team in Uploaders: do you understand what it
means (for DPMT) ? (it's just a check ;)
I think I did that according to the policy on Alioth [1], which has different
content than on the wiki page [2]. Given that I'm fine with the team taking over
when I'm too busy (hopefully not needed ;-)), I've switched the fields.
[1] http://python-modules.alioth.debian.org/python-modules-policy.html
[2] http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam/HowToJoin
Here are some comments:
debian/control
- I'd remove 'Provides: ${python:Provides}'
Fixed.
debian/copyright
- ehm:
Files: debian/*
Copyright: 2010, 2011, Oxan van Leeuwen<oxan@oxanvanleeuwen.nl>
License: Apache-2 or GPL-2+
either stay with apache-2 or with gpl2+: what's the need for this
uncertainty and the possible dual licensing for debian packaging code?
(hint: i'd go with the same license of upstream code, less legal issue
in case of patching and so).
I think that was left over from packaging the older 1.x release (never submitted
for inclusion into Debian), where I indeed licensed the packaging GPL-2+ to
match upstream code. I've removed the GPL-2+ license from the copyright file as
it doesn't make any sense now.
- can you please specify where did you find the 2011 copyright for
upstream code? I can only see LICENSE.txt containing the 2010. Also,
can you please ask upsteram author to put a real name& email in
copyright notice? It's not a must but a nice to have :)
I thought I found the 2011 somewhere, but that was wrong. apparantly not. I've
asked the upstream author for his comments on the licensing [3] and changed the
copyright year to 2010.
[3] https://github.com/Yelp/python-gearman/issues/issue/8
> debian/patches/01_include_docs_conf
> - ask upstream to add teh file to the manifest, so it will be included
> in the next tarball
Done: https://github.com/Yelp/python-gearman/issues/issue/7
- you could upload to experimental, where sphinx>= 1 is alive and
kicking - what would you do?
Well, given that I don't see much value in adding the source code to the
documentation (it's already on your system and you usually don't need it), I
prefer uploading to unstable.
debian/rules
- don't call 'make' directly but use '$(MAKE)' instead
- 'cd docs&& make html' can be converted in '$(MAKE) -C docs html'
- why don't you call '$(MAKE) -C docs clean' instead of rm-ing the dir?
Fixed them all.
- why you don't install .js files? ok, they should not be shipped in
the binary package but a link to libjs-query files instead, but you're
not making it either.
I've added a link to the libjs-query package instead of completely removing it.
Rationale behind the suggests instead of recommends is that the package will
mostly be installed as a dependency of other packages (library package) and thus
the documentation won't be read by most of the users. It also works fine without
libjs-jquery. (other packages in the DPMT seem to be inconsistent, some use
Recommends and some use Suggests).
Thanks,
Oxan
Reply to: