On 2014-06-08 10:03:20, Jakub Wilk wrote: > [I don't intend to sponsor this package. Sorry!] HI Jakub, Thx for the review anyway :-) > * Marcin Kulisz (kuLa) <debian@kulisz.net>, 2014-06-06, 18:33: > >http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/python-fysom/python-fysom_1.0.15-1.dsc > > Your .orig.tar is not the same as the tarball provided by upstream. Why? Hard to say atm as I've compared python-fysom_1.0.15.orig.tar.gz produced by dpkg and upstream provided tarball for fysom-1.0.15.tar.gz and internally (files and dirs) looks the same. But it's interesting so I try to figure it out. > Upstream README says that the software comes “with unit tests”, but I can't > find any of them… Oh, apparently they exist in the github repo, but not in > the tarball. Could you ask upstream to include them? Sure I can (another point to talk to them about) > python-setuptools is required in the clean target, so it must be in > Build-Depends, not Build-Depends-Indep. Already done > “This is Python port built and tested on Python 2.6 to 3.3.” in the package > description is rather misleading, given that Debian package would be built > only against Python 2.7. I'll agree, description now is tweaked. > I would remove “This file was automatically generated by …” from > debian/rules. Done already > I would advise you not to use a more restrictive license for debian/ than > upstream uses. I remember that I saw somewhere this recommendation I just can't recall where. GPL2+ is a safe choice but I see your point and probably I'll implement it as well. > I never override debian-watch-may-check-gpg-signature tags. Just because > upstream doesn't sign their releases now, doesn't mean they won't do it in > the future. And this tag acts as I reminder that I haven't talked them into > doing this yet. :-) Besides, Lintian manpage says that “adding overrides for > pedantic tags is probably not worth the effort”. Some other DD suggested the same so it's already done. On 2014-06-07 22:43:58, Daniel Lintott wrote: > > On 07/06/14 22:20, Alex Chernyakhovsky wrote: > > I've noticed you're using debhelper, and specify a > > compat level of 8. As far as I can tell, you're only using debhelper 7 > > features; perhaps consider setting the compat level to 7 (and > > depending on debhelper >= 7) to ease backporting? > > That is unnecessary as oldstable has debhelper 8 [1] Daniel, Alex, Thx for your comments, as Daniel suggested I'll stick to debhelper 8 which seams to be reasonable. Regarding X-Python-Version it's implemented as well, just pkg version which was reviewed was already obsolete as lots of issues have been fixed in the mean time. None the less thx for your suggestions. -- |_|0|_| | |_|_|0| "Heghlu'Meh QaQ jajVam" | |0|0|0| -------- kuLa --------- | gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x58C338B3 3DF1 A4DF C732 4688 38BC F121 6869 30DD 58C3 38B3
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature