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

Bug#807432: RFS: python-jellyfish/0.5.1-1 [ITP]



Thanks Paul and Gianfranco for your clarification in regards to the
style patches, I was confused by the mention of the check-all-things
commands on your initial reply and I appreciate your explanation!

> Just a question:
> the code in README file, works for python3 but not for python.
> However I think its a README fault, not a code fault.

I'm quite certain that it is indeed a problem with the README (the
library was initially only available on Python 2, and the README.rst has
not gone through significant changes since then, even if Python 3
support was introduced around 0.3.2). I'll follow up on upstream,
hopefully resulting in a quick fix indeed.

> I changed the target to unstable, bumped std-version to 3.9.8 (it got bumped
> after my previous review), and uploaded on unstable.
...
> https://packages.debian.org/sid/python3-jellyfishoops
> 
> so you have to rename/move it.

My apologies if I should have explicitely mentioned it earlier: the
conflicts with the existing "jellyfish" Debian package were noticed
earlier on [1], and a recent discussion on the ITP bug [2] resulted on
an agreement with the jellyfish maintainer that basically should result
in:
- the *existing* python-jellyfish should have its python module name
renamed (work in progress at [3]).
- this package should indeed be renamed to something else (
"python-jellyfishstr" being the most likely candidate), and keep the
python "jellyfish" module name.

I was waiting on #819016 being closed before making the changes to this
package (renaming + uploading to the debian-python git + adding the VCS
control fields) - again, sorry if it should have been stated more
clearly that the package was not ready for uploading yet due to the
naming/module conflicts.

I'd be happy to proceed with the renaming right away, if that's ok - in
regards to the BTS, would it be preferable to use the control tags
(reopen, retitle, block on #819016?) or just submit a new ITP+RFS
entirely?

Best regards, and thanks again,

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2016/01/msg00001.html
[2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=806716#54
[3] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819016

-- 
Diego M. Rodriguez
36B3 42A9 9F2F 2CFB F79B  FF9B B6C4 B901 06BC E232

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: