Re: RFS: celery
Hi Michael,
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 01:53:52PM +0100, Michael Fladischer wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "celery".
This has taken a while... As I noted in the original ITP, I'm interested
to see celery and django-celery in Debian and hence willing to upload
immediately after the problems below are fixed. Great job besides those :-)
1) In celery, you're overriding dh_clean with rm -rf build, but you're never
calling dh_clean. This results in:
debian/files |only
debian/python-celery |only
debian/python-celery-doc |only
debian/python-celery-doc.debhelper.log |only
debian/python-celery-doc.substvars |only
debian/python-celery.debhelper.log |only
debian/python-celery.postinst.debhelper |only
debian/python-celery.prerm.debhelper |only
debian/python-celery.substvars |only
debian/tmp |only
2) dpkg-source complains about the unexpected upstream changes in both:
/camqadm.1 |only
/celerybeat.1 |only
/celeryctl.1 |only
/celeryd-multi.1 |only
/celeryd.1 |only
/celeryev.1 |only
celery.egg-info/PKG-INFO | 2 +-
celery.egg-info/SOURCES.txt | 1 +
celery.egg-info/requires.txt | 2 +-
/djcelerymon.1 |only
django_celery.egg-info/PKG-INFO | 2 +-
django_celery.egg-info/SOURCES.txt | 8 ++++++++
3) Both source packages are different from what's present in SVN;
strange thing is, in celery SVN seems newer than .dsc, in django-celery,
the opposite. Could you sync them up?
4) Celery's extended description is excellent; django-celery's not,
however. I think a better description of it is warranted.
5) Last name first for the Maintainer's name is not against policy, but
is a bit weird — I've never seen it before. I guess it's okay if you've
been using it in your previous packages...
Best regards,
Faidon
Reply to: