On 11/22/18 6:02 AM, Wookey wrote: > And it looks like it should be called src:drf-filters > binary:python3-djangoresetframework-filters to fit in with naming > conventions of related packages/python team (even though upstream is > 'django-rest-framework-filters'). Right?
The binary package name is right, though there's no convention for the source package naming. "drf-filters" doesn't feel very descriptive to me though. > Also related: I've updated drf-extensions to 0.4 (from the current > 0.3.1), as that is needed for lava, and fixes > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=865851 > > What I'm not quite sure about is if there is any reason _not_ to > update this package. It has no reverse dependencies so I presume this > is a good idea and I should just get on with it? would a 10-day NMU be > appropriate? If you join the team, I see no reason why you couldn't do the upgrade yourself indeed, especially if you do a 10-day NMU on it. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
