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

Bug#740379: ITP: asciinema -- Record and share your terminal sessions,

On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 21:49:54 -0300, gustavo panizzo <gfa> wrote:
> On 02/28/2014 06:03 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > I will sponsor this, no problem.
> pkg is ready, take a look to it.
> git+ssh://git.debian.org/git/collab-maint/asciinema.git

Hi Gustavo, I may not be able to sponsor but I am interested in trying
this package out when it is uploaded. I just cloned and tried to build,
here is some feedback.

* Can you arrange for the git HEAD to point to debian/upstream branch?
That way when it is cloned it is ready to build.

* The contents of the upstream tarball do not match the state of git at
the upstream tag. Also d/gbp.conf sets compression to xz, but upstream
is .tar.gz. This confused my build when I ran uscan and then attempted
to build the package. Instead I had to delete the .orig.tar.gz fetched
by uscan and let gbp create a different .orig.tar.xz from the git tag.
This may be an accepted workflow that I'm not used to, but confused me
when there is a d/watch with a tarball that breaks the build.

* d/rules optionally includes openstack-pkg-tools, but it is not
required (I can build without it) and is not listed in Build-Depends.
I'm not familiar with openstack packaging, what purpose does including
it serve?

* pybuild seems to be the preferred way to build Python packages now in
Debian, I'd suggest packaging with that instead of python_distutils.
It's as simple as adding dh-python to Build-Depends and changing
buildsystem to pybuild.
  - https://wiki.debian.org/Python/Pybuild

* I see asciinema supports both Python 2 and 3. If it doesn't matter
to users which one is used, why not build it for Python 3 only?

Cheers, looking forward to seeing this in Debian,


Reply to: