On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 09:52:43AM (+0000), Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > imho, yes too. > It's an application (=> users shouldn't need to care too much about the > implementation language), and upstream's name doesn't contain 'python', > imho there is no reason to specify in the name that it's in python.
Hi Mattia, Thanks for the review! Just renamed also the source package, and the git repo. https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/letsencrypt/lecm.git > oh, now I also noticed that the clean target doesn't clean > appropriately. > If you try to rebuild twice the package you get > > dpkg-source: info: local changes detected, the modified files are: > python-lecm-0.0.5/lecm.egg-info/PKG-INFO > python-lecm-0.0.5/lecm.egg-info/SOURCES.txt > python-lecm-0.0.5/lecm.egg-info/dependency_links.txt > python-lecm-0.0.5/lecm.egg-info/entry_points.txt > python-lecm-0.0.5/lecm.egg-info/requires.txt > python-lecm-0.0.5/lecm.egg-info/top_level.txt > dpkg-source: error: aborting due to unexpected upstream changes, see > /tmp/python-lecm_0.0.5-1.diff.2w_sk2 > > Also you don't delete debian/lecm.1 > > You can just add lecm.egg-info and debian/lemc.1 to debian/clean. > > You can test this by using pbuilder with the option --twice (though it's > not a comprehensive test, as that just thest that you can build twice > (and you currently can't, that's an RC), but not that you actually > restore the source package to initial situation). Oh indeed, I missed that point :-/ I use sbuild, and sbuild doesn't seems to have an easy way to do this check. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=424846 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=671074 Let me know if I missed something, Thanks! Seb
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Letsencrypt-devel mailing list Letsencrypt-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org https://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/letsencrypt-devel
