Hi Peter, Thanks for your time reviewing my work.
> > Package name > ============ > I saw that you started with psrecord as source package name and > tijuca > suggested to use python-psrecord in [0]. After looking into the > package, > my personal preference is to switch back to psrecord as source > package > name since in my view the main task of the package is to provide a > psrecord executable and I consider the fact that it is written in > Python > an implementation detail. This is basically the situation mentioned > by > stefanor in [1]. Therefore my proposal is to use psrecord for both > the > source and the binary package name. > > I understand that this is an unfortunate situation for you since one > person suggests to do A and another person suggests to do B. > Therefore I > propose to wait a bit and see what other people think about this. > More > opinions are much appreciated - in particular in view of recent > discussions about namespacing Python packages. Yes, indeed after first reading DPT conventions, I also concluded the best source/binary pkg name combo would be plain psrecord. I'll wait a bit more, suggestions are very much welcome. If nothing relevant happens in the meantime (both in this thread or more general discussions) I will move the whole repo again to salsa/dpt/psrecord. This little tool is quite useful and I'd hate for it to be stuck in limbo for too long. > > Packaging details > ================= > > branch layout > ------------- > The team policy specifies branch name conventions [2]. According to > this > policy the branch containing the upstream source should be called > "upstream". Actually used is "upstream/latest" (also note that the > presently used upstream branch does not match the branch specified in > d/gbp.conf). > As per recent DEP14 discussions here, we might move DPT default policy to upstream/latest anyway(DEP14 is not yet out, though). I didn't put the branch like that randomly, it was on suggestion of Carsten Schoenert in an older thread regarding repository naming conventions, again :) (Re: Moving default branch after project creation) >> I suggest to use `upstream/latest` as upstream branch. >> It spares you separating upstream/latest, upstream/master, >> upstream/whatever later. Now I agree with both of you, I quite like the way upstream/latest works but I am willing to change it of course since this is unreleased anyway. > d/control > --------- > Thank you for all the other observations, I will begin fixing the problems. You have a keen eye ! :D > > Also, to anyone with admin powers, please nuke > > https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/psrecord as this was > > migrated to the new location following discussions about naming > > conventions. it's empty. > > I cannot help with this part. But in view of the open discussion > about > the package name, it might be prudent to wait until this issue has > been > settled. Yes, sure. > > If you have questions concerning anything mentioned above, do not > hesitate to ask. > > Best regards, > > Peter Have a great day and thanks for the help, Alexandru Mihail
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
