On 5/11/21 1:25 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 9:56 PM Emmanuel Arias <eam...@yaerobi.com> wrote:
>> On 5/8/21 10:37 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:29 AM Emmanuel Arias <eam...@yaerobi.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 4:22 AM Sandro Tosi <mo...@debian.org> wrote:
>>>>>> * poetry-core failing https://ci.debian.net/packages/p/poetry-core/
>>>>> are you handling this failure?
>>> looks like this is fixed in git: do you need a sponsor?
>> Yes, please. Thanks!
> sounds good, i'll have a look at this package soon and let you know
>>>>>> * python-cleo in review 
>>>>>> https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/cleo I hope finished this 
>>>>>> week
>>> stefanor uploaded it a few days ago
>> Yes.
>>>>>> * poetry still in progress 
>>>>>> https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/poetry -> need help and 
>>>>>> reviews
>>> for this one it looks like you imported a new upstream release a week
>>> ago: is there something we can help/check about poetry?
>> I've just push some advances. Currently, I'm working on tests, if you
>> want to take a look.
> maybe just ask here (or directly to me) if you have questions and
> what's failing/needs work, so we dont duplicate work
>> We need new upstream release for python-httpretty (for tests), that I
>> upload to mentors [0]. @zigo ask me about test that this new upstream
>> release doesn't break
>> cloud-init and python3-scciclient (I would like to take a look to ratt
>> for that).
> ratt is pretty great, and rather simple to use:
> - setup a sbuild schroot for unstable
> - build a binary package from the source you're working on
> - `ratt <file>_amd64.changes`
> and then you'll get on screen the results for each package + a
> directory with the build results and logs
> https://github.com/Debian/ratt
> keep in mind it rebuilds packages sequentially, so it can take some
> time if the number of reverse deps is high.

Thanks for the advice!

>> Perhaps a good help from a more experienced person would be check if all
>> is ok with DFSG,that's my biggest concern.
> for which package specifically? while it's boring and long work, it's
> also rather trivial: look at every single file (yep, all of them) from
> the upstream source, and document their copyright and license in
> d/copyright -- happy to answer questions if you have something
> specific in mind about this

Thanks, I hope have more news at the finish of the week


> Regards,

Attachment: OpenPGP_0xFA9DEC5DE11C63F1.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to