Am 2013-06-13 15:13, schrieb Christian Marillat:
Bernhard Reiter <[email protected]> writes:
Please also remove python-glade2, which is also obsolete now.
No, not in Debian.
Yes, it is no longer required for the gourmet Debian package. I've put
quite some effort into migrating upstream from (py)glade to gtk.Builder,
which is just part of python-gtk2. If you don't believe me, just try
building and running the package without the python-glade2 dependency
(which BTW is what I did before requesting this change in the first
place, and which I've tested once again just now to make sure).
(You also don't need python-gtk2-dev and python-elib.intl in
Build-Depends-Indep. Just tested it, builds and runs fine without. Also,
you don't need python | python-all | python-dev | python-all-dev --
python-all is sufficient, but it should be in Build-Depends, not
Build-Depends-Indep.)
Another thing: could you please change the Homepage: field in
debian/control to the new location, http://thinkle.github.io/gourmet/ ?
Furthermore, please:
* Add python-beautifulsoup to Recommends, and close bug #530403
(required for web import plugin).
I'll do that in the next upload.
* Add python-gst0.10 to Recommends (required for playing sound).
Not in Recommends in Suggests.
Fine.
* Add patches lc-all-c and license-location found at [1].
(lc-all-c fixes a bug that caused gourmet to fail when LC_ALL=C, and
license-location changes the location used to look for the license, as
LICENSE is deletedby debian/rules, but gourmet would look for it when
showing the About dialog.)
I'll do that in the next upload.
[...]
The ellipsis meaning that you're not going to apply those other
suggested changes? You could've at least told me that explicitly.
* FWIW, lintian suggests adding Pre-Depends: dpkg (>= 1.15.6~) for
similar reasons.
* Backporting would also be faciliated by build-depending on debhelper
(>= 7.0.50~) instead of 9, which I believe is sufficient.
Certainly not. debhelper 9 is in stable/testing/unstable we don't needs
debhelper 7.
[...]
PS: Doing this twice (producing a Debian package with a comprehensive
changelog, and then asking you to adopt the changes) feels quite
redundant, frankly. Do you really fear I'd be messing with your package
if I was granted Uploader rights?
Apparently you don't understand, Ubuntu isn't Debian.
Please spare me the snotty, and unrelated comments. I'm quite aware of
the differences between Debian and Ubuntu, which is why I originally
prepared an actual Debian package to which I pointed you around the
beginning of *March* [1]. OTOH, the Ubuntu specific modifications found
in [2] are also near-trivial. Either way, you could've just taken a
closer look at my package and applied those changes at once that are now
taking up as many as five iterations and counting. Not too efficient, is it?
Bernhard
[1] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/python-apps-
team/2013-March/007222.html
[2] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/raring/+source/gourmet
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
