Re: Second round of advise on packaging python-csb
I clumsily forgot to post a reference to the package repository [1] in
my previous message. My apologies.
Tomás
[1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debian-med/python-csb.git;a=summary
On 12/11/12 15:34, Tomás Di Domenico wrote:
> Greetings, all.
>
> After the very helpful replies I received to my first message about
> packaging the CSB library, I'm now kindly requesting a second round of
> comments on the state of the package.
>
> With the goal of having a clean repo to start with, but also willingly
> repeating some steps to better understand and learn them, I have
> recreated the git repository for the package. A consequence of this is
> that you will not be able to use the logs to see the changes since my
> first message, so here's a list of the things I did:
>
> * Rebuilt the package with an upstream release tarball
> * Added 'X-Python-Version: >= 2.6' to debian/control
> * Versioned the build-dependency on python-all (
>> = 2.6.6-3~)
> * Bumped the standard to 3.9.4
> * Bumped debhelper to 8.1.0
> * Changed debian/* license to MIT, matching upstream's
> * Added dependency on ${python:Depends}
> * Removed the empty docs file
>
> Speaking of docs, the upstream tarball contains HTML-formatted
> documentation for the module's API. How would this be handled? Should it
> be made available as a separate package?
>
> Once again, thank you all in advance.
>
> Tomás
Reply to: