Re: review for python-leather/0.4.0-1
Hi Jeroen,
Thank you for your review!
I took a look at the python-leather package up for sponsorship in the
Python team. Some issues came up during review:
* possible unused build-deps on python3-six, -doc, dpkg-dev;
* build-dep on furo could be marked !nodoc;
* build-dep on sphinx-common is redundant, already a dependency of
python3-sphinx.
* examples are probably better installed into the documentation pkg > > *
python3-leather suggests doc pkg with a build profile included
(""; copy/paste error?);
All of the above suggestions have been completed and pushed to salsa.
Changing the installation of examples generates lintian experimental
warnings for duplicate files, so those files have been removed.
* doc package has a useless suggested dependency on itself.
This change is also pushed to salsa. It was part of the initial
packaging for Debian, so I am surprised it has gone this long unnoticed.
* lintian hit: W: python3-colormap: debian-changelog-line-too-long
[usr/share/doc/python3-colormap/changelog.Debian.gz:7]
This lintian warning looks like it is for a different package,
python3-colormap.
Please let me know your thoughts and if any changes should be made!
Best,
--
Ileana Dumitrescu
GPG Public Key: FA26 CA78 4BE1 8892 7F22 B99F 6570 EA01 146F 7354
OpenPGP_0x6570EA01146F7354.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: review for astral/3.2-1
Hi Jeroen, I took a look at the astral package put up for sponsorship in the Python team. Some minor issues came up: * unused build-deps on requests, tz; * outdated copyright years for upstream, see src/astral/__init__.py; * entire paragraph for apache-2.0 license is only a filepath. I have applied your suggested changes and pushed to salsa. Also notice there's no human maintainer or uploader listed, consider adding yourself if you have a direct interest in this package. I added myself as an uploader, so I just need the permissions for future uploads. Thank you for reviewing! -- Ileana Dumitrescu GPG Public Key: FA26 CA78 4BE1 8892 7F22 B99F 6570 EA01 146F 7354 OpenPGP_0x6570EA01146F7354.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: New uploader needed for python-colorama
Hi Agathe, Since I am not using the package nor have packages that depend on it, I am kindly asking if someone can add themselves to the uploaders list of the package and re-upload. I am happy to be the uploader for python-colorama. I just pushed an update to salsa, but as a DM, I require an initial sponsor to upload and allow me the upload permissions for future releases. -- Ileana Dumitrescu GPG Public Key: FA26 CA78 4BE1 8892 7F22 B99F 6570 EA01 146F 7354 OpenPGP_0x6570EA01146F7354.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: review for pytest-fail-slow/0.3.0-1
Hi, Some repo issues: * It appears tags were not pushed, as there's no tags at all in the repo - not even for the imported upstream release - although the typical gbp workflow would handle that. That is done now. * The upstream tarball produced by uscan differs from the pristine-tar data. Are you making use of the standard tools for importing new releases, e.g. 'gbp import-orig --pristine-tar --uscan' or similar? This was strange but I found the reason. The upstream repo in github had two .tar.gz files that were slightly different, so I updated the branches to be consistent with uscan. But I am using the standard tools. Then for the packaging itself (which is in pretty good shape): * changelog: please leave the release at UNRELEASED, cf. team policy. * control: + the binary pkg for a pytest plugin is commonly named python3-pytest-; + short description: Pytest plugin to [current description]? * upstream/metadata missing. * no autopkgtest? Should be a trivial yet *very* useful addition, providing early warning for things like compatibility issues with newer pytest releases before packages using the plugin start seeing failures. All are updated as asked, and I created an autopkgtest. Thank you for the feedback! Is there a check list that you follow when reviewing these packages? That can help with future uploads. -- Ileana Dumitrescu GPG Public Key: FA26 CA78 4BE1 8892 7F22 B99F 6570 EA01 146F 7354 OpenPGP_0x6570EA01146F7354.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: review for pipenv/2022.10.12-1
> You can avoid resetting or forcing anything by increasing the > repacksuffix. As far as both git and the tooling are concerned, that > makes it an all new upstream version without conflicts with the > repo's current content, so pushing to git works just fine. > First update the excluded files in d/copyright and commit that > change, then run with the usual 'gbp import-orig --pristine-tar > --uscan'. When gbp asks you for the upstream version, modify the +ds > part to +ds2 and proceed with that. Thanks! uscan was not quite letting me use gbp import-orig but I was able to update the excluded files and have uscan re-download the new tarball correctly. Then I just had to rename the tarball with the +ds2 version and use gbp import-orig . Anyway that produced the intended result, so I pushed that along with the lintian-overrides, and the pipeline passes. >> I totally lost interest in maintaining that package and kind of neglected >> it because of the vendoring and the package itself or rather its upstream. >> Anyways, I thought I've orphaned it long time ago (maybe I forgot to do >> that). So thank you for taking over, I'm sure a lot of users will be happy! No problem! I am happy to help. I added myself as an uploader also, and I do not think there is a need to formally orphan if the team still maintains it (and I will continue to upload). Ileana
Re: review for pipenv/2022.10.12-1
> I did just notice the upstream release contains several other files > worth considering for removal: a bunch of windows executables [1]. I agree and can remove those from the source tarball too. To do that with the current upstream version in salsa though requires me to git reset, re-import the 2022.10.25+ds upstream with updated Files-Excluded, then add back the other commits. I have done that locally but this requires a force push which is not allowed for the debian branch since it is protected. Alternatively I can keep the existing upstream import (which only excludes get-pipenv.py and not the *.exe files) and add the new excluded files in debian/copyright for the next upstream import. Please let me know your preference on these repack options, and I will update accordingly. > Lintian seems to think the source for some html file is missing, but > at first glance that hit may well be a false positive triggered by > some bits of javascript. > Unrelated to any of the above, I pushed some minor changes and > enabled the CI on salsa. Thanks! I noticed the false positive and since the lintian test on the pipeline fails, I will add a lintian-overrides file so that it can pass. I have not pushed that to salsa yet, but I will after hearing your preference with the repack. Ileana
Re: review for pipenv/2022.10.12-1
Hi, Thank you for the feedback! I made changes as you suggested. There is a new upstream version that I also included in the new package. New updates are in salsa, and I will put a RFS on the IRC channel. Reading debian package policy I noticed that removing files from a tarball for a repack (as Bastian suggested in bug #1019714) should require a +ds suffix, so I packaged the new version with 2022.10.25+ds-1. Please let me know if I did this incorrectly or if this should not be done for this package. > + E: pipenv: python-traceback-in-manpage is a false positive, please override. This did not show up in lintian with the new upstream version. > PS: I'm kind of surprised a package with this amount of vendoring > managed to survive the ftp masters' review. Apparently, sometimes > miracles do happen. I totally agree. This package is quite a mess to deal with. Hopefully future upstream versions do not keep changing the vendor files, otherwise the licensing will continue to be a nightmare. I will continue to monitor pipenv as they are releasing new upstreams quite frequently. Ileana Dumitrescu GPG Public Key: FA26 CA78 4BE1 8892 7F22 B99F 6570 EA01 146F 7354
Request to join python team
Hi, I am requesting to join the debian python team. I have already contributed merge requests for updates to asyncpg and autokey (salsa username is ildumi95), and I am working on updates to several other python projects. I plan to help with standard package maintainer tasks and bug fixes. If there are any specific high-maintenance or generally neglected packages that need extra help or working on, please let me know! I am a current member of the debian science maintainers team and have contributed to python packages within the science team such as pivy. I have also contributed to debian with riscv port fixes for various packages. I do not have DD/DM privileges but am hoping to submit a DM application soon. I confirm that I have read and accept the terms of the team policy in https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/policy.rst . Ileana Dumitrescu GPG Public Key: FA26 CA78 4BE1 8892 7F22 B99F 6570 EA01 146F 7354
