On 2017-08-19 at 20:54:34 +0000, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> No, it just means that I rashed too much at reviewing it last night and
> was already sleeping.
> I didn't notice all those files where inside a directory -.-'

lol :)

> > That's exactly the issue, I've added a comment with a pointer to 
> > https://github.com/ema/pycodicefiscale/issues/6
> The project doesn't strike me as very active, but thanks :)

Well, the scope of the project is quite limited, and it its feature set
is basically complete or nearly so, so the lack of commit activity
doesn't worry me.

Around the time when I opened that issue I also proposed a (small) pull
request to add python3 support and that one was accepted in a very short
time, so the project didn't look abandoned.


> > > * just quickly skimming over the README, I think it would make sense to
> > >   include in the binaries, as it provides quick documentation (I think)
> > 
> > yes, it does, you're right (added in git)
> [...]
> This is not going to do what you expect, check both the produced
> binaries ;)

yeah, that did exactly half of what I expected :)

should be fixed now (also in git)

> (`debc` right after having built the package is handy for that, I run
> it in a pbuilder hook for example)

Thanks. I currently check packages with lintian (--pedantic) and
piuparts, and I sort-of-know-but-still-don't-use check-all-the-things:
is there something else I should/can add to the list?

Elena ``of Valhalla''

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to