Hello! 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 Thanks! > >>>>>> * 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 ok! > >> We need new upstream release for python-httpretty (for tests), that I >> upload to mentors . @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 Cheers! > > Regards,
Description: OpenPGP public key
Description: OpenPGP digital signature