Bug#676872: sponsorship-requests: RFS: python-minimock/1.2.7-1 -- simple library for Python mock objects
Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> writes:
> (I don't intend to sponsor this package.)
Thank you for being clear.
> Your debian/rules is odd. The "build-arch" target calls "dh
> build-arch", so it's effectively no-op. However, the "binary-arch"
> target depends on "install", which calls "dh install", which
> builds&install almost everything. Shouldn't both "build-arch" and
> "binary-arch" be no-ops?
The intent is to allow ‘dh_python2’ to do whatever it needs to modify
those rules.
You're right that, for this package, the ‘*-arch’ targets should do
nothing. I will make that change.
> Upstream provides tests, please consider running them at build time.
Noted, thank you.
> > + Update copyright information.
>
> Your copyright file says "2009-2011 Joshua Bronson", but I don't see
> any such copyright statement in the upstream tarball.
I am going from activity in the project's VCS. How best to represent and
verify that in the ‘debian/copyright’ file?
> License paragraphs of your copyright file are formatted in an unusual
> way. Only lines containing a full stop indented by exactly one space
> denote blank lines. A full stop indented by more than one space (like
> in your case) means a verbatim dot.
Hmm, it is more readable indented four columns; but you're right that
the format in policy applies different meanings to different indentation
levels. I will change the field as you suggest.
> The package FTBFS if built twice in a row:
That didn't happen for me with a ‘pbuilder --build --twice’, which I run
specifically to find problems like this. Any idea why the results would
be different?
--
\ “My house is on the median strip of a highway. You don't really |
`\ notice, except I have to leave the driveway doing 60 MPH.” |
_o__) —Steven Wright |
Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>
Reply to: