Please add me to the python-team/modules group on salsa
Hello, My username on salsa on jmuchemb-guest. I'm already member of DPMT. I saw this answer on this ML but I don't see this link: Le 02/14/18 à 21:46, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) a écrit : > I think you have to click on 'request access' on > https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules Julien
Re: Packaging new version of ZODB (Zope Object Database)
Updated status of ZODB packaging. I didn't write it in my previous mail because there was still a lot time before deadlines but now, it's becoming short. I'd like to see ZODB updated for Stretch, at least that's what I had in mind when I started months ago. Having a very old version of ZODB until 2019, without even support for python 3, would be frustrating. I am actually looking for sponsors who could upload them in time. They all should be in good state. Maybe Arnaud will be available again for the last uploads. Here is the dependency graph of packages that need(ed) to be updated (I forgot to mention a few of them in my previous package): zdaemon -> python-zc.customdoctests, zconfig zodb -> python-persistent, transaction, zodbpickle, python-btrees, zconfig, zc.lockfile (bin-new) zeo -> zodb, zdaemon (+ zodb recommending zeo) Packages would be uploaded in 3 rounds: (1) python-zc.customdoctests (new), zconfig (bin-new) (2) python-persistent, transaction, zodbpickle (new), python-btrees (new), zc.lockfile, zdaemon (bin-new) (3) zodb (bin-new), zeo (new) (1) is done already. (2) 3 are on mentors.debian.net https://mentors.debian.net/package/python-btrees (RFS #847609) https://mentors.debian.net/package/python-persistent https://mentors.debian.net/package/zodbpickle (RFS #847608) transaction, zc.lockfile and zdaemon are also finished on my side, but I guess the priority is the new packages. They all should be in good state. (3) So that zodb/zeo are uploaded and accepted before the 26th About VCS, it's too late to think about it now. I'm interested in this topic so I'll be happy to work on this once ZODB is updated. For the moment: - I followed blindly the policy for the new python-zc.customdoctests/zodbpickle/python-btrees packages - I stay on svn://anonscm.debian.org/pkg-zope/ for the packages of the Zope team, and for the new 'zeo'. Regards, Julien
pyclean and namespaces
(oops, resending to correct ML address) Hello, I found a potential issue while finishing to package a newer version zc.lockfile. Since pycompile/pyclean does some namespace handling with what is defined /usr/share/python/ns, I thought I could remove the dummy python-zc binary package that was done in zc.lockfile However, pyclean does not check whether other packages still need the same namespaces. In other words: - install python-zc.lockfile (with my local changes, so that it only relies on pycompile/pyclean for zc/__init__.py) - install python-zc.customdoctests, which actually over-writes zc/__init__.py but that's not an issue at installation - remove 1 of the above 2 packages - zc/__init__.py gone, whereas there are still folders in /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/zc But that still seems to work: $ python Python 2.7.12+ (default, Sep 1 2016, 20:27:38) [GCC 6.2.0 20160927] on linux2 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> import zc.lockfile >>> zc.__path__ ['/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/zc'] (because of /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/zc.lockfile-1.2.1-nspkg.pth) Tested with the last version python-minimal (2.7.11-2). Regards, Julien
gitignore and import of upstream tarballs (was Re: Packaging new version of ZODB (Zope Object Database))
Le 12/05/16 à 20:21, Julien Muchembled a écrit : > So I plan to create only 3 new packages in DPMT: > - python-btrees > - python-zc.customdoctests > - zodbpickle I am also preparing an update for python-persistent. But for all that, I followed https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackaging and there's no indication about gitignore'd files and the *.egg-info directory. 1. Both upstream repositories have a .gitignore file at the root (ignoring *.egg-info among other files) but on PyPI: - BTrees-4.3.1.tar.gz contains it - persistent-4.2.2.tar.gz does not contain it I also have a ~/.gitignore file that ignores *.egg-info/ anyway. 2. The last release of zc.customdoctests is quite old and the tarball contain a egg-info folder that differs slightly to what the new setuptools generates, which is the source of bugs like #825921 Having generated files in Git is not great. 1 thing at a time so just simple questions: - Should the 'Creating a new package' paragraph on the wiki says 'git add -f .' instead of 'git add .' ? - It's quite obvious that ~/.gitignore should be ignored, but is it also the case for the one that may be in the tarball ? - Do we always want *.egg-info directories in Git ? Meanwhile, the wiki should also recommend to add the following line to debian/source/options: extend-diff-ignore="\.egg-info/" Julien signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Packaging new version of ZODB (Zope Object Database)
Le 11/04/16 à 16:15, Scott Kitterman a écrit : > On Friday, November 04, 2016 10:47:32 AM Barry Warsaw wrote: >> On Nov 03, 2016, at 08:36 PM, Julien Muchembled wrote: >>> Not sure if all python-modules repositories are like persistent, but for >>> me, mixing Debian work with imported tarballs in the same branch is >>> terrible. When possible, I prefer to fork the upstream repository, >>> otherwise no upstream source at all. >> >> You're not alone, but I think that's still a minority opinion in the team. >> Our packages are so tightly integrated with PyPI, and source tarballs are >> such an ingrained aspect of that service, that a pristine-tar based >> approach for team packages still makes sense, IMHO. > > You can integrate a new upstream directly from an upstream git repository > with > git-dpm if that's what makes sense for a particular upstream. That's tempting and I was about to ask how, but I doubt the team would accept. The Zope foundation already releases everything on PyPI and the policy says: « Complete upstream git history should be avoided in the upstream branch. [...] When you must (not want to) deviate, » So I plan to create only 3 new packages in DPMT: - python-btrees - python-zc.customdoctests - zodbpickle Packages maintained by the Debian/Ubuntu Zope Team, like zodb, will stay where there are (since I prefer git-svn+source-less), and I'll also create 'zeo' there (because it depends on zodb). https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackaging: > Q: Source-full or source-less branches? A: Source-full branches please! There > are lots of good reasons for this, including the ability to easily diff > between upstream versions, [...] Such source-full tree is unusable for me. I need git-blame too and auto-generated files are annoying. Julien
DPMT Membership request (was Packaging new version of ZODB (Zope Object Database))
Hello, Le 11/01/16 à 20:10, Julien Muchembled a écrit : > I am co-maintaining the 'zodb' package and I am also an upstream developer. > http://www.zodb.org/ - a native object database for Python > > Debian currently packages branch 3.x of ZODB, which is getting quite old, > with only support for Python 2. It's been a while that I am working locally > in packaging a newer version, and I have almost finished. > > With branch 4.x, ZODB has been splitted into 4 packages (-> means Depends): > ZEO -> ZODB -> (Btrees, persistent) > The split of persistent was already backported. > > And in addition to that: > - new dependencies that are not packaged yet > - some existing dependencies needs to be updated as well > > I write to debian-python, because some of the involved packages are not > specific to Zope. Actually, I even think that ZODB itself is not specific to > Zope, but well, changing section of existing packages can be another topic. > I've just requested to join the Python Modules Packaging Team. I see that many people request membership on the ML. I did it on the Alioth interface and it looks like my request was lost. There's already this whole thread explaining what I'm doing. My Alioth login is jmuchemb-guest. I have read https://python-modules.alioth.debian.org/policy.html and accept it. Greetings, Julien
Re: Packaging new version of ZODB (Zope Object Database)
Le 11/02/16 à 23:51, Barry Warsaw a écrit :
> On Nov 02, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Arnaud Fontaine wrote:
>> This has already been discussed but all the packages in pkg-zope SVN
>> repository will have to be moved to python-{modules, apps} repositories
>> (because there is almost no activity on pkg-zope and most modules are
>> used independently of Zope anyway) and we should use debian-python ML
>> for the same reason, so yes, please use debian-python ML and commit
>> everything to python-{modules, apps} repositories.
>
> +1. I do still touch some of the ztk packages and would dearly love to ditch
> svn, but just haven't had the time to think about a proper migration. Should
> we just admit defeat and do on-demand conversions, preserving history if
> possible but not worrying about it too much?
>
> And then what about just using gbp and ignoring git-dpm? The latter still
> kind of works but we know it's a dead-end. Anybody looked at dgit? Is that
> a useful option?
I'm used to gbp. I don't know git-dpm (or I forgot after seeing I would not
like?)
Not sure if all python-modules repositories are like persistent, but for me,
mixing Debian work with imported tarballs in the same branch is terrible. When
possible, I prefer to fork the upstream repository, otherwise no upstream
source at all.
Actually, I already use git-svn+gbp locally for zodb (I have a debian symlink
between the upstream and debian repos; that even works with patches), so it's
not urgent to convert for me.
Julien
Re: Packaging new version of ZODB (Zope Object Database)
Le 11/02/16 à 04:41, Paul Wise a écrit : > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Julien Muchembled wrote: > >> Bug#842870: ITP: zodbpickle -- Fork of pickle module, for ZODB > > Please ensure the security team are informed about this fork, via > their embedded-code-copies file: > > https://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCodeCopies > Thanks, I didn't know. I'll do it. BTW, about the fact that it's a fork, I'm not sure how to write debian/copyright The upstream license is somewhat a concatenation of: - the PYTHON SOFTWARE FOUNDATION LICENSE VERSION 2 (license of the original code) - and the Zope Public License (ZPL) Version 2.1 (contributions of the Zope Foundation) https://github.com/zopefoundation/zodbpickle/blob/master/LICENSE.txt As starting point, I have the attached file, which is similar to what I have to python-btrees and zc.customdoctests Julien Format: http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ Upstream-Name: zodbpickle Upstream-Contact: Zope Foundation and Contributors <zope-...@zope.org> Source: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/zodbpickle Files: * Copyright: (c) 2013-2016 Zope Foundation and Contributors. License: Zope-2.1 Zope Public License (ZPL) Version 2.1 . A copyright notice accompanies this license document that identifies the copyright holders. . This license has been certified as open source. It has also been designated as GPL compatible by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). . Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: . 1. Redistributions in source code must retain the accompanying copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer. . 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the accompanying copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. . 3. Names of the copyright holders must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission from the copyright holders. . 4. The right to distribute this software or to use it for any purpose does not give you the right to use Servicemarks (sm) or Trademarks (tm) of the copyright holders. Use of them is covered by separate agreement with the copyright holders. . 5. If any files are modified, you must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. . Disclaimer . THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Packaging new version of ZODB (Zope Object Database)
Le 11/01/16 à 20:10, Julien Muchembled a écrit : > * python-btrees & python-zodbpickle (done) > https://github.com/zopefoundation/BTrees > https://github.com/zopefoundation/zodbpickle > > - new packages > - Debian Python Modules Team > > [...] > > * python-zeo (not started) > https://github.com/zopefoundation/ZEO > > [...] > > * zc.customdoctests (done) > https://github.com/zopefoundation/zc.customdoctests > > - new package > - Debian Python Modules Team > > I haven't done any ITP yet. Bug#842870: ITP: zodbpickle -- Fork of pickle module, for ZODB Bug#842874: ITP: python-btrees -- scalable persistent object containers for Python Bug#842876: ITP: zc.customdoctests -- Use Python doctest with other languages I'll do ZEO later. Julien
Packaging new version of ZODB (Zope Object Database)
Hello, I am co-maintaining the 'zodb' package and I am also an upstream developer. http://www.zodb.org/ - a native object database for Python Debian currently packages branch 3.x of ZODB, which is getting quite old, with only support for Python 2. It's been a while that I am working locally in packaging a newer version, and I have almost finished. With branch 4.x, ZODB has been splitted into 4 packages (-> means Depends): ZEO -> ZODB -> (Btrees, persistent) The split of persistent was already backported. And in addition to that: - new dependencies that are not packaged yet - some existing dependencies needs to be updated as well I write to debian-python, because some of the involved packages are not specific to Zope. Actually, I even think that ZODB itself is not specific to Zope, but well, changing section of existing packages can be another topic. I've just requested to join the Python Modules Packaging Team. So here is the status of my work: * Generally, I add support for Python 3 everywhere it is missing. I only added PyPy support when it's trivial (e.g. zodbpickle), because that would need work on even more existing packages. * python-zodb (almost finished) - changelog entries to be written - decide an upgrade plan for the split of ZEO (some users may have installed zodb for it): maybe a Recommends: ? - to give a better overview, here's the new Depends: for Python2: python-btrees (>= 4.2.0), python-persistent (>= 4.2.0), python-six, python-transaction (>= 1.5.0), python-zc.lockfile, python-zconfig, python-zodbpickle (>= 0.6.0), python-zope.interface, python:any (<< 2.8), python:any (>= 2.7.5-5~) * python-persistent (done) - trivial update to 4.2.1 - I'd like to commit to python-persistent.git (python-modules), or someone does it for me * python-btrees & python-zodbpickle (done) https://github.com/zopefoundation/BTrees https://github.com/zopefoundation/zodbpickle - new packages - Debian Python Modules Team * python-transaction (done) - update to version 1.6.1 - svn repos is late compared to the packaged version * python-zeo (not started) https://github.com/zopefoundation/ZEO * python-zdaemon (done) - needs to be updated for ZEO - new deps: mock, zc.customdoctests * zc.customdoctests (done) https://github.com/zopefoundation/zc.customdoctests - new package - Debian Python Modules Team I haven't done any ITP yet. Julien
