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

Re: Bug#1111174: RFS: python-fontfeatures/1.9.0+ds-2 [ITA] -- Manipulate OpenType font features (common documentation)



Control: tags -1 -moreinfo

On 16/08/25 13:23, Jeroen Ploemen wrote:
Control: tags -1 moreinfo

On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 12:39:11 +0530
Aryan Karamtoth <spaciouscoder78@disroot.org> wrote:


hi Aryan,

careful with the multi-arch stuff, the hint only involved the -doc
package. As the documentation linked from the package tracker says,
one can set 'Multi-Arch: foreign' if "the package is Architecture:
all, does not contain any maintainer scripts and does not have any
dependencies on architecture-dependent packages". The binary package
that holds the Python module does not meet that last requirement.

You also removed 'Built-Using: ${sphinxdoc:Built-Using}', although
that is actually perfectly fine (and the lintian hit it triggered a
false positive, as mentioned in an earlier msg).

Please make sure to document all packaging changes in d/changelog.


Please remove the moreinfo tag (and CC me) once you have an updated
package ready.

Thanks for telling me. I've fixed the Built-Using as well as removed multi-arch for the binary package. I've also added all of my changes to d/changelog.

Latest commit containing the changes can be found here [1]

Please let me know if there are any more changes I need to make.

I've emailed the previous maintainer but it seems like they replied to my commits on Salsa instead and for some reason my salsa notifications were off so I missed their comments, enabled them now.

[1] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/python-fontfeatures/-/commit/8419ab6063dd74a96287d04858f0909f84f3d0a5

-- 
Regards,

Aryan Karamtoth
Matrix: @SpaciousCoder78:matrix.org
XMPP: SpaciousCoder78@xmpp.earth

GPG Fingerprint: 7A7D 9308 2BD1 9BAF A83B 7E34 FE90 07B8 ED64 0421

Attachment: OpenPGP_0xFE9007B8ED640421.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: