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

Bug#671403: RFS: python-lzo/1.08-1 [ITP] -- Python bindings for the LZO data compression library




Hi, Jakub Wilk, thanks for your review.

Le 04.05.2012 18:26, Jakub Wilk a écrit :
* Mehdi Abaakouk <sileht@sileht.net>, 2012-05-03, 22:26:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-lzo/python-lzo_1.08-1.dsc

I have upload a new revision of the package:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-lzo/python-lzo_1.08-2.dsc

Have you forwarded the patch upstream?

No, but the problem is already known by upstream author and the next release of
the python binding will be only compatible with lzo2 library.

Wouldn't it make sense to omit the "download/" part from the Homepage field?

I have clean it.

Since the licenses for debian/ directory and for the rest of the
package are identical, you could save some space by moving their texts
to a standalone license paragraph.

Could you get rid of the comment in debian/rules?

done

You don't need --buildsystem=python_distutils; dh with detect the
build system automatically.

I have to use the python build system because the upstream provide a Makefile
that don't allow to build package for multiple python version.

Upstream provides a test suite. Please run it at build time, using
all supported Python versions.

Added, but can you tell me if they are a better way to launch test against all supported debian python version ?


pyflakes reports (among others):

./setup.py:24: undefined name 'CURL_DIR'
./setup.py:25: undefined name 'CURL_DIR'

This does not affect Debian, but you might want to report it upstream.

The setup.py say that this part is only a example, window user must customize this part.


This packages closes ITP #671375 (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=671375)

As per Developer's Reference §5.1, you should have sent a copy of
the ITP to debian-devel. Also, Version pseudo-header doesn't make
sense for wnpp bugs.


Regards,
---
Mehdi ABAAKOUK
sileht@sileht.net




Reply to: