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

Bug#795771: RFS: dblatex/0.3.7-1



Gianfranco Costamagna <costamagnagianfranco@yahoo.it> wrote:

Hi Gianfranco,

> first nitpick: not needed to upload a -2 version. using the same -1
> is fine and works until the real upload (on Debian ftp-master) is
> performed

I'm used to be very careful (you could also say: paranoid) regarding
publishing: never publish anything changed under the same release number
as before, even if it's only a release candidate on mentors.

But as this seems to be overdone, I will merge the two changelog
sections and return to 0.3.7-1 on my next upload.

> >Here I disagree again: dblatex-examples.tar.bz2 has been uploaded one
> >time (in 2009) to SourceForge and hasn't changed since then, the archive
> >is not versioned at all.  Thus IMHO it's overkill to use a separate
> >package for this small, static add-on.
>
>
> mmm what does it happen if they gets updated and you miss it because
> there is no uscan detecting them?
>
>
> I see that the watch file already takes care of them, unfortunately they
> are not versioned, so we might not catch an update there...
>
> this is usually bad, maybe ping upstream about adding an 1.0 somewhere
> to avoid people missing examples updates
> (but here we might really don't care about examples 10 years old never
> updated)

I'd suggest asking him to add a version number to the *next* examples
update (which I don't expect to happen soon).  That should be enough,
shouldn't it?

> BTW you might also use pypi to fetch your sources from
> http://pypi.debian.net/dblatex
>
> (there is also a watch file for the source tarball, you might want to use
> it and add the examples part)

Interesting service (didn't know about it), but I don't understand: what
is the advantage over querying SourceForge directly?  The latter is the
URL always given in the upstream release mails, thus I regard it as the
canonical source.

> Some other nitpicks:
> I see you runtime-depends on python-apt, not sure why, but please consider
> adding it to the
>
> install_requires section of setup.py and let python:Depends do its job :)

As setup.py is contributed by upstream, I don't want to add a patch just
to replace the rules dependency.  However I will ask upstream to add the
install_requires section in the next upstream release, then I can drop
the rules dependency.

Any more loose ends?  Otherwise I would merely do a merged upload under
the original version numer, as explained above.

Regards, Andreas
-- 
Andreas Hoenen <andreas@hoenen-terstappen.de>
GPG: 1024D/B888D2CE
     A4A6 E8B5 593A E89B 496B
     82F0 728D 8B7E B888 D2CE

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: