Bug#693481: package is available
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 08:46:35 Jakub Wilk wrote:
> I don't intend to sponsor this, but here's my quick review:
I very much appreciate your feedback Jakub. Thank you.
>
> Support for .pyinstall files was added in python-defaults 2.6.6-6. This
> is newer than the version in squeeze, so please add version constraint
> to build-dependency on python-all.
Done.
>
> s/python/Python/ is the package synopsis.
Done.
>
> The extended description makes sense only when displayed together with
> the short one. You shouldn't assume that this will always be the case;
> long description should be stand-alone. Also, lintian emits:
>
> I: python-webm: extended-description-is-probably-too-short
>
Surely I should have put more effort to this obvious problem.
I didn't miss it but I was struggling to produce a meaningful description.
At the moment I've changed long description to
Python module to provide interface to Google WebM video/image codec.
It uses ctypes to call the libvpx/libwebm system library (libwebp).
Thank you.
> I would advise you against using a more restrictive license than
> upstream uses.
>
Acknowledged, thank you for advise. However for a moment I'll leave packaging
license as GPL-2+ as I'm not aware of any potential problems.
> Short license names in DEP-5 copyright file cannot contain spaces.
>
Right, will "BSD-2-clause_(modified)" be better, do you think?
> Regarding with-libwebp2.patch: you must not use the .so symlink at
> runtime, because it could point a library that is not ABI-compatible
> with python-webm. (See #651865 for a practical example of what could
> happen when one uses .so symlink.)
Thank you, I'll let upstream know. I've noticed this problem but I'm a Python
illiterate and this mistake was done by two experienced Python developers
(upstream and author of the patch) so I didn't feel confident enough to
overrule. Thank you for example demonstrating the problem.
All the best,
Dmitry.
--
Regards,
Dmitry.
Reply to: