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

> 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.


Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Reply via email to