Re: Choosing "proper" Section field (Was: Bug#742639: ITP: python-expyriment -- Python library for cognitive and neuroscientific experiments)
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 09:14:28PM -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> Leaving
> (reoccurring) discussion on "Pure Blends vs NeuroDebian" aside for a
> possible beer-drinking occasion let's continue with technical issues
> here.
I'd really looking forward to a beer-drinking session about this. :-)
> > python-expyriment (0.7.0+git34-g55a4e7e-1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
>
> > * Initial release to Debian (Closes: #742639)
> > * Add list of exclusions for git
> > * Add doc-base support
> > * Add watch file for uscan
> > * Use the correct URLs for the Vcs-* fields (as per Debian Policy 5.6.26)
> > * Override the Lintian warning about package section
> > * add: upstream/metadata
> > * update doc-base
>
> > -- Oliver Lindemann <oliver.lindemann@uni-potsdam.de> Wed, 02 Apr 2014 19:12:55 +0200
>
> > python-expyriment (0.7.0+git34-g55a4e7e-0neurodebian1) neurodebian; urgency=low
>
> > * Initial release in NeuroDebian
>
> > -- Oliver Lindemann <oliver.lindemann@uni-potsdam.de> Wed, 26 Mar 2014 14:35:33 +0100
>
> Backports uploaded to NeuroDebian carry ~nd suffix for Debian revision
> portion of the package versions, thus sorting "lower" than official
> version. See e.g.
That's what I mean.
> $> acpolicy python-expyriment
> python-expyriment:
> Installed: 0.7.0+git34-g55a4e7e-1
> ...
Probably I should have checked this in the first place. Sorry for
contributing to even more confusion. I have the feeling that I'm
involved in two many things simultaneously that I sometimes (hopefully
not to frequently) fail to check things properly.
> > The current changelog entry contains the changes to the first package
> > (which makes sense if it was released somewhere) and most importantly
> > the "Closes: #742639" string. If you want to close a bug in Debian you
> > should close it in an upload to Debian (for the nitpickers: yes, I'm
> > aware of alternatives, but I'm describing the usual case for a newbee).
> > Since the package is not yet released the target distribution should be
> > "UNRELEASED". In Debian Med we have a workflow that the sponsor will
> > set this to "unstable" before he is doing the upload.
>
> And then, if it would be Debian Med team member to upload straight from GIT --
> just let us (NeuroDebian) know and we will upload backport building straight
> from the uploaded source package.
I'm afraid I don't get what you want to tell me with this sentence.
> > In general we try to approach packages to be inside Debian first and let
> > user oriented projects - so called Blends[1] - pick from the official
> > Debian package pool. NeuroDebian is following this route not that
> > strictly and thus it might come to some inconsistencies which we
> > observed now.
>
> what inconsistencies? ;)
... these in my mind. ;-) I admit things were perfectly right. I just
should have checked the Debian package pool rather than just answering
Olivers mail. Sorry again for the noise.
> > Hope this clarification makes sense and that NeuroDebian people take
> > over now with final sponsering since I'm afraid I might miss some more
> > pieces of information.
>
> oki doki -- will do
Thanks for your upload (confirmed in the other mail) and I hope I did
not tipped to much on your shoes
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: