Re: RFS: Pyspread 0.2.6-1
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Andreas Noteng andr...@noteng.no wrote: On 07. mars 2014 02:52, Vincent Cheng wrote: If there aren't any non-DFSG-compliant files in upstream's tarball (and I see nothing that would suggest that this file in particular is non-DFSG-compliant), please do not repack upstream's tarball; it's simply not necessary at all. You can simply remove this file on clean and regenerate it as you would normally do. No, the only issue is the non verifyable binary code in the script. If you're ok with uploading the original tarball that's fine by me. SVN updated. If you can regenerate that file during the build process, I'd argue that it doesn't qualify as non-verifyable binary code (given that source is present and you do in fact regenerate the file). :) Looks ok, I haven't found any other issues other than the one above. The previous releases have been thoroughly checked by Jakub Wilk, so I think it should be OK. :-) Also, according to DEHS, there's a new upstream release that you may want to consider packaging. The newer tarball is a windows only change, so I'll wait for the next upstream release. Ack. Built, signed, and uploaded; thanks for your contribution to Debian! Regards, Vincent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CACZd_tBmkYdgBru5_4QZ+=Uu5MFz=F=v06uva8yauo0yb68...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: Pyspread 0.2.6-1
On 07. mars 2014 02:52, Vincent Cheng wrote: If there aren't any non-DFSG-compliant files in upstream's tarball (and I see nothing that would suggest that this file in particular is non-DFSG-compliant), please do not repack upstream's tarball; it's simply not necessary at all. You can simply remove this file on clean and regenerate it as you would normally do. No, the only issue is the non verifyable binary code in the script. If you're ok with uploading the original tarball that's fine by me. SVN updated. Looks ok, I haven't found any other issues other than the one above. The previous releases have been thoroughly checked by Jakub Wilk, so I think it should be OK. :-) Also, according to DEHS, there's a new upstream release that you may want to consider packaging. The newer tarball is a windows only change, so I'll wait for the next upstream release. Regards Andreas Noteng -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/531b13c6.8010...@noteng.no
Re: RFS: Pyspread 0.2.6-1
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Andreas Noteng andr...@noteng.no wrote: On 17. feb. 2014 21:57, Andreas Noteng wrote: Requesting a review and upload of Pyspread 0.2.6-1 available in the papt repo. Package is lintian clean, but I'm unsure if I did the DEP-8 implementation correctly or if it's at all possible. Running the tests manually works just fine but with adt-run some of them fail Made some changes and removed the ttf-mscorefonts-installer dependency from the tests and changed the dependency on it from recommends to suggests. Apparently the fonts are useful if opening pyspread files created on windows. New changelog: pyspread (0.2.6-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream release * Refresh patches * Delete documentation_typos.patch, fixed upstream * Add DEP-8 tests * Remove runstests.py from original tarball and regenerate during test run If there aren't any non-DFSG-compliant files in upstream's tarball (and I see nothing that would suggest that this file in particular is non-DFSG-compliant), please do not repack upstream's tarball; it's simply not necessary at all. You can simply remove this file on clean and regenerate it as you would normally do. (Some other pet peeves of mine: not appending +dfsg/+ds to the version number if you're using a repacked tarball, and not uploading your repacked tarball to mentors.d.n so I can compare your tarball with one that I'd generate myself with your get-orig-source target.) * Add recommends: python-xlrd * Add suggests: ttf-mscorefonts-installer * Make sure tests don't fail if ttf-mscorefonts-installer is not installed (tests_font_check.patch) * Switch from using key uid to key id (Closes: #739907) (gpg_uid_to_key_id.patch) * Standards-Version bumped to 3.9.5 (no change) -- Andreas Noteng andr...@noteng.no Mon, 03 Mar 2014 17:00:24 +0100 A review and hopefully an upload would be appreciated. Looks ok, I haven't found any other issues other than the one above. Also, according to DEHS, there's a new upstream release that you may want to consider packaging. Regards, Vincent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caczd_tdtks3g_h8geso2uws61hpx5qcjuv7oob+pjiymtmk...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: Pyspread 0.2.6-1
On 17. feb. 2014 21:57, Andreas Noteng wrote: Requesting a review and upload of Pyspread 0.2.6-1 available in the papt repo. Package is lintian clean, but I'm unsure if I did the DEP-8 implementation correctly or if it's at all possible. Running the tests manually works just fine but with adt-run some of them fail Made some changes and removed the ttf-mscorefonts-installer dependency from the tests and changed the dependency on it from recommends to suggests. Apparently the fonts are useful if opening pyspread files created on windows. New changelog: pyspread (0.2.6-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream release * Refresh patches * Delete documentation_typos.patch, fixed upstream * Add DEP-8 tests * Remove runstests.py from original tarball and regenerate during test run * Add recommends: python-xlrd * Add suggests: ttf-mscorefonts-installer * Make sure tests don't fail if ttf-mscorefonts-installer is not installed (tests_font_check.patch) * Switch from using key uid to key id (Closes: #739907) (gpg_uid_to_key_id.patch) * Standards-Version bumped to 3.9.5 (no change) -- Andreas Noteng andr...@noteng.no Mon, 03 Mar 2014 17:00:24 +0100 A review and hopefully an upload would be appreciated. Regards Andreas Noteng Changes since last upload: pyspread (0.2.6-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream release * Refresh patches * Delete documentation_typos.patch, fixed upstream * Add DEP-8 tests * Remove runstests.py from original tarball and regenerate during test run * Add recommends: python-xlrd, ttf-mscorefonts-installer * Standards-Version bumped to 3.9.5 (no change) Regards Andreas Noteng -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5314d186.2010...@noteng.no
Re: RFS: Pyspread 0.2.6-1
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:27 AM, Barry Warsaw ba...@debian.org wrote: On Feb 21, 2014, at 01:59 PM, Dmitry Shachnev wrote: On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Barry Warsaw ba...@debian.org wrote: They don't run automatically during package build for either pbuilder or sbuild afaik, although that would be really nice. No. Autopkgtests are designed to test *installed* packages, which is just not possible to do at build time (i.e. because that requires a different set of dependencies). Right. I was just saying that I think it would be nice if sbuild/pbuilder could arrange to run run-adt-test with the artifacts of the build installed. It's probably a bit tricky to get it right, but not doing so probably means that most autopkgtests aren't actually getting run locally before being uploaded. Thanks for the explanation! You're right, it'd be nice to see autopkgtest integrated with pbuilder and/or sbuild; it would certainly give autopkgtest more visibility in Debian. It seems to me that only Ubuntu is taking advantage of it, but autopkgtest adoption could be sped up a lot more (in both Debian and Ubuntu) if DDs in general were aware of it and started adding them to their own packages en masse. With regards to pyspread...given the discussion above, I don't think ttf-mscorefonts-installer even belongs in suggests? End users are usually the only ones that care about suggested packages, and they're not the ones who are going to be creating or running autopkgtests anyways. Regards, Vincent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caczd_tcw1tyn+t_54pexyvom_rdbcfac2wj72grndbyiio+...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: Pyspread 0.2.6-1
On 25. feb. 2014 10:53, Vincent Cheng wrote: With regards to pyspread...given the discussion above, I don't think ttf-mscorefonts-installer even belongs in suggests? End users are usually the only ones that care about suggested packages, and they're not the ones who are going to be creating or running autopkgtests anyways. Upstream sent me a patch so that the tests no longer require msttcorefonts. Committed to SVN. Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/530cf656.1020...@noteng.no
Re: RFS: Pyspread 0.2.6-1
On Feb 18, 2014, at 09:10 PM, Vincent Cheng wrote: I don't really know how autopkgtests work, but if they're run automatically during the build process like dh_auto_test, then that would cause your package to FTBFS. Can you modify the tests so that they work with other fonts, or disable the offending tests entirely? They don't run automatically during package build for either pbuilder or sbuild afaik, although that would be really nice. Ubuntu's buildd's do run them during the publishing phase, and you can run them locally, which isn't a bad idea. Here's Ubuntu's documentation on autopkgtest, which seems the best so far. I haven't tried this on Debian yet. http://packaging.ubuntu.com/html/auto-pkg-test.html Cheers, -Barry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140219104536.1a076...@anarchist.wooz.org
Re: RFS: Pyspread 0.2.6-1
On 19 February 2014 15:45, Barry Warsaw ba...@debian.org wrote: On Feb 18, 2014, at 09:10 PM, Vincent Cheng wrote: I don't really know how autopkgtests work, but if they're run automatically during the build process like dh_auto_test, then that would cause your package to FTBFS. Can you modify the tests so that they work with other fonts, or disable the offending tests entirely? They don't run automatically during package build for either pbuilder or sbuild afaik, although that would be really nice. Ubuntu's buildd's do run them during the publishing phase, and you can run them locally, which isn't a bad idea. Here's Ubuntu's documentation on autopkgtest, which seems the best so far. I haven't tried this on Debian yet. http://packaging.ubuntu.com/html/auto-pkg-test.html For debian: http://ci.debian.net/ (execution results) http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep8/ (spec) -- Regards, Dimitri. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CANBHLUiv5Gxa1d+EVPRMDZw_6BasrZfHz=0qWE2UCL-jp6A1=a...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: Pyspread 0.2.6-1
On 17. feb. 2014 23:26, Vincent Cheng wrote: ...A package in main must not depend or recommend a non-main package (in this case, ttf-mscorefonts-installer, which is in contrib). Refer to Policy 2.2.1. Thanks. I knew depend was not OK but believed recommends was. But, according to 2.2.1 suggests is ok, right? Pyspread works just fine without ttf-mscorefonts-installer, so I guess suggests would be a better choice anyway. The tests will fail without the package though. Is it OK to include ttf-mscorefonts-installer as a test dependency in debian/tests/control ? Regards Andreas Noteng -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/53034882.3000...@noteng.no
Re: RFS: Pyspread 0.2.6-1
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:48 AM, Andreas Noteng andr...@noteng.no wrote: On 17. feb. 2014 23:26, Vincent Cheng wrote: ...A package in main must not depend or recommend a non-main package (in this case, ttf-mscorefonts-installer, which is in contrib). Refer to Policy 2.2.1. Thanks. I knew depend was not OK but believed recommends was. But, according to 2.2.1 suggests is ok, right? Pyspread works just fine without ttf-mscorefonts-installer, so I guess suggests would be a better choice anyway. The tests will fail without the package though. Is it OK to include ttf-mscorefonts-installer as a test dependency in debian/tests/control ? Suggests is fine, yes. I don't really know how autopkgtests work, but if they're run automatically during the build process like dh_auto_test, then that would cause your package to FTBFS. Can you modify the tests so that they work with other fonts, or disable the offending tests entirely? Regards, Vincent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CACZd_tB=sp9mbovedu9hyabdfybcrztbrestecjtwricycc...@mail.gmail.com
Re: RFS: Pyspread 0.2.6-1
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Andreas Noteng wrote: Pyspread works just fine without ttf-mscorefonts-installer, so I guess suggests would be a better choice anyway. The tests will fail without the package though. Is it OK to include ttf-mscorefonts-installer as a test dependency in debian/tests/control ? Why does the test need a particular font? -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6FW-QVMonULBT5wN6QR7s1oK+jo6_=ygbojkj0xred...@mail.gmail.com
RFS: Pyspread 0.2.6-1
Requesting a review and upload of Pyspread 0.2.6-1 available in the papt repo. Package is lintian clean, but I'm unsure if I did the DEP-8 implementation correctly or if it's at all possible. Running the tests manually works just fine but with adt-run some of them fail Changes since last upload: pyspread (0.2.6-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream release * Refresh patches * Delete documentation_typos.patch, fixed upstream * Add DEP-8 tests * Remove runstests.py from original tarball and regenerate during test run * Add recommends: python-xlrd, ttf-mscorefonts-installer * Standards-Version bumped to 3.9.5 (no change) Regards Andreas Noteng -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5302779e.80...@noteng.no
