Re: Request for review/sponsorship of python-lzma
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 07:52:19AM -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> Other than that, I don't really think there's much to add; I'm just
> hoping someone else might suggest what to do about the
> ${python:Depends} expanding to python (>= 2.6) issue; if people can
> suggest a workaround, then we can upload it, else we'd have to wait
> for Python 2.6 to become the default.
Josselin was kind enough to point out that this happens only if I use
a chroot which uses Python 2.6 as default, which I was using. If one
doesn't fool around with the default Python settings in experimental,
no problems occur, since I get python (>= 2.6) | python2.6 in the
depends line.
Thanks for clarifying.
Kumar
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Request for review/sponsorship of python-lzma
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 07:43:59AM -0500, Richard Darst wrote:
> I removed the extra non-DEP5 stuff at the top, and tried to tighten it
> up to strictly match what it says. There were some quirks, such as
> the required "Format-Specification" field not being present in any
> examples... I think that I've interpreted it strictly enough now that
> it should be correct. Here is the latest:
>
> http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/python-modules/packages/python-lzma/trunk/debian/copyright
I would guess that the last few lines should be like this:
License: LGPL-3+
This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as
published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the
License, or (at your option) any later version.
.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
.
On Debian systems the full text of the GNU Lesser General Public
License can be found in the `/usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-3'
file.
> Anything else I can do to the package?
Other than that, I don't really think there's much to add; I'm just
hoping someone else might suggest what to do about the
${python:Depends} expanding to python (>= 2.6) issue; if people can
suggest a workaround, then we can upload it, else we'd have to wait
for Python 2.6 to become the default.
This issue does bring forth a question, though. If a module is
supported on python $current_default_version + 1, but not on
$current_default_version, there currently seems to be no way of
installing it. Is there an elegant way around this, or is it that
we're not really interested in supporting modules which don't work
with the $current_default_version?
Thanks!
Kumar
--
We all know Linux is great... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds.
- Linus Torvalds about the superiority of Linux on the Amsterdam
Linux Symposium
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Request for review/sponsorship of python-lzma
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 06:58:07PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > Richard Darst writes: > > > On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 10:02:23AM -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > > > debian/copyright: > > > * Licensed under LGPLv3+ > > > * Please add license headers too. > > The header of a DEP 5 copyright file doesn't discuss licenses. What > Kumar seems to be referring to here is the fields in the body stanzas of > that file; you should write enough Files stanzas to cover all the > copyright terms of the work. I thought I had this, since it says the first license stanza defaults to "Files: *". I made it explicit now. Also, the source files with a copyright notice also include the authors of liblzma and the LZMA SDK, even though (as far as I can tell) it doesn't use any source from these things, so I left them out of the debian/copyright file. > > I have them at the bottom of debian/copyright, but I didn't see > > anything that said if or how they have to be separated... > > Have a closer read of DEP 5; it describes a header (describing the > package as a whole), and then a body with multiple stanzas. The header > is separated from the body by a blank line, and each stanza in the body > is separated from then next by a blank line. > > DEP 5 also forbids anything in that file which *isn't* the header or the > body stanzas; if you're going to conform with DEP 5, put all the > information into the structured format described there. I removed the extra non-DEP5 stuff at the top, and tried to tighten it up to strictly match what it says. There were some quirks, such as the required "Format-Specification" field not being present in any examples... I think that I've interpreted it strictly enough now that it should be correct. Here is the latest: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/python-modules/packages/python-lzma/trunk/debian/copyright Anything else I can do to the package? Thanks, - Richard -- | Richard Darst - rkd@ - boltzmann: up 125 days, 9:19 |http://rkd.zgib.net - pgp 0xBD356740 | "Ye shall know the truth and -- the truth shall make you free" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Request for review/sponsorship of python-lzma
Richard Darst writes: > On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 10:02:23AM -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > > debian/copyright: > > * Licensed under LGPLv3+ > > * Please add license headers too. The header of a DEP 5 copyright file doesn't discuss licenses. What Kumar seems to be referring to here is the fields in the body stanzas of that file; you should write enough Files stanzas to cover all the copyright terms of the work. Note that conforming with DEP 5 is not required; as it says, “This is not a proposal to change the policy in the short term”: the proposal is still only that. Yet it is gaining a lot of support, and can give a good structure to the copyright file of a package. > I have them at the bottom of debian/copyright, but I didn't see > anything that said if or how they have to be separated... Have a closer read of DEP 5; it describes a header (describing the package as a whole), and then a body with multiple stanzas. The header is separated from the body by a blank line, and each stanza in the body is separated from then next by a blank line. DEP 5 also forbids anything in that file which *isn't* the header or the body stanzas; if you're going to conform with DEP 5, put all the information into the structured format described there. -- \ “If consumers even know there's a DRM, what it is, and how it | `\ works, we've already failed.” —Peter Lee, Disney corporation, | _o__) 2005 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Request for review/sponsorship of python-lzma
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 10:02:23AM -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> Dear Richard,
>
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 08:26:00AM -0500, Richard Darst wrote:
> > I worked with kmap last night to get my package of python-lzma (in
> > DPMT svn) in shape. We think it's good, and he suggested I email here
> > for further review and possibly sponsorship (to experimental since it
> > depends on 2.6).
Thanks for the review. I've fixed these things in the svn. Some of
them were caused by me not understanding the debhelper system just
yet.
> debian/copyright:
> * Licensed under LGPLv3+
> * Please add license headers too.
Is license headers the DEP5 things? I have them at the bottom of
debian/copyright, but I didn't see anything that said if or how they
have to be separated...
> debian/rules:
> * debhelper >= 7.3.5 has automatic support for building extensions for
> every supported Python version, so overriding dh_auto_* should be
> omitted.
I removed the overrides. However, I left in the dh_auto_test
override, since the python_distutils debhelper system doesn't seem to
support it.
> In addition, I observed that the package, when built, is currently
> uninstallable, even with the Python from experimental. The reason is
> that ${python:Depends} expands to python (>= 2.6), which is currently
> unsatisfiable, as the version of the "python" package in experimental
> is 2.5.4-3:
Hm. When it build for me, it expanded to "python (>= 2.6) |
python2.6" which does work because of the or operation. Is this
expected?
Thanks for the reviews,
- Richard
--
| Richard Darst - rkd@ - boltzmann: up 125 days, 3:05
|http://rkd.zgib.net - pgp 0xBD356740
| "Ye shall know the truth and -- the truth shall make you free"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Request for review/sponsorship of python-lzma
Dear Richard,
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 08:26:00AM -0500, Richard Darst wrote:
> I worked with kmap last night to get my package of python-lzma (in
> DPMT svn) in shape. We think it's good, and he suggested I email here
> for further review and possibly sponsorship (to experimental since it
> depends on 2.6).
>
> If there's anything else I can/should do, please let me know.
We missed the following points:
Luca Falavigna pointed out these issues:
debian/control:
* "Maintainer:" doubled. (I fixed this)
debian/copyright:
* Licensed under LGPLv3+
* Please add license headers too.
debian/rules:
* debhelper >= 7.3.5 has automatic support for building extensions for
every supported Python version, so overriding dh_auto_* should be
omitted.
* Why overriding dh_pysupport?
In addition, I observed that the package, when built, is currently
uninstallable, even with the Python from experimental. The reason is
that ${python:Depends} expands to python (>= 2.6), which is currently
unsatisfiable, as the version of the "python" package in experimental
is 2.5.4-3:
http://packages.debian.org/experimental/python
Others can chip in with more advice; including whether to wait till
Python 2.6 is uploaded to unstable, or whether this can be worked
around.
Thanks.
Kumar
--
Less is more or less more
-- Y_Plentyn on #LinuxGER
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Request for review/sponsorship of python-lzma
Hello, I worked with kmap last night to get my package of python-lzma (in DPMT svn) in shape. We think it's good, and he suggested I email here for further review and possibly sponsorship (to experimental since it depends on 2.6). If there's anything else I can/should do, please let me know. Thank you, - Richard -- | Richard Darst - rkd@ - boltzmann: up 123 days, 10:18 |http://rkd.zgib.net - pgp 0xBD356740 | "Ye shall know the truth and -- the truth shall make you free" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
