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

Re: RFS: bunch, kitchen, grapefruit, fabulous, stomper, txws, txzmq, moksha.common, moksha.hub



Quoting Jakub Wilk (2013-05-08 12:29:58)
> * Simon Chopin <chopin.simon@gmail.com>, 2013-05-07, 20:04:
> >(or RFR, for Jakub :P)
> 
> Oh hi!
> 
> >fabulous: Makes your terminal output totally fabulous
> 
> fabulous/fonts/cmr10.ttf license doesn't look free to me.

I've removed all the fonts from the tarball since their license wasn't
specified anyway — I had to go look in other packages to find them.
I guess the FTP masters disagree with you on the license though, as one
can find this font at least in fonts-lyx.

> 
> I see this in debian/patches/build_xterm256_ext:
> -    library = expanduser('~/.xterm256.so')
> +    library = '/usr/share/lib/xtermspeedup.so'
> Errr, /usr/share/lib/?
Ooops. Fixed
> 
> I don't see a point of making fabulous-xtermspeedup a separate package. 
> It's tiny, and doesn't bring any extra dependencies.
Yes, but it's arch:any whereas the rest is arch:all.

> The package FTBFS when I build only arch-dependent packages:
> |    dh_sphinxdoc -a
> | dh_sphinxdoc: Sphinx documentation not found
> | make: *** [binary-arch] Error 2
Shouldn't dh_sphinxdoc -a be a NOP?

> 
> If I were the maintainer, I would remove (with a Debian-specific patch) 
> this junk from setup.py:
> | from ez_setup import use_setuptools
> | use_setuptools(version='0.6c11')

I always thought this was only a convoluted way to check for the version
and never bothered to actually look at ez_setup. Now I understand why
you'd remove it, and will do the same from now on.

> 
> lintian4python emits (among others):
> x: python-fabulous: except-without-exception-type usr/share/pyshared/fabulous/logs.py:86
> x: python-fabulous: except-without-exception-type usr/share/pyshared/fabulous/utils.py:95
> x: python-fabulous: except-without-exception-type usr/share/pyshared/fabulous/xterm256.py:104
Patched and reported upstream.

Cheers,
Simon

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature


Reply to: