Re: Team upload for python-jedi
On Wed, 2017-01-18 at 13:37 +0100, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > Hi, > > [Ghislain Vaillant, 2017-01-18] > > Would you be ok if I push the changes required to fix #830399 and > > #841043 for src:python-jedi and prepare a team-upload? > > > > I need the RC fixed for the packaging of spyder. > > go ahead. I have almost working package with latest changes from upstream > git repo but some tests still fail and I don't have time to work on it > right now. Ok, I have got a working package fixing the RC. However, whoever did the migration from svn to git forgot that the source tree was made of multiple tarballs (one for jedi, one for jedi-vim) and now the vim plugin package cannot be produced because of the missing sources [1]. [1] https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/python-modules/packages/python-jedi.git/tree/ How I should proceed now? We could just drop the vim plugin package for now (it does not work anyway due to #841043), and consider introducing a new source package for it later. Afterall, they are separate projects on GitHub [2, 3]. Otherwise, I guess the svn migration would have to be re-run? I have no idea how to do it, nor setting up git-dpm to use multiple tarballs. [2] https://github.com/davidhalter/jedi [3] https://github.com/davidhalter/jedi-vim Cheers, Ghis
Team upload for python-jedi
Hi Piotr, Would you be ok if I push the changes required to fix #830399 and #841043 for src:python-jedi and prepare a team-upload? I need the RC fixed for the packaging of spyder. Cheers, Ghis
Re: Team upload for python-jedi
Hi, [Ghislain Vaillant, 2017-01-18] > Would you be ok if I push the changes required to fix #830399 and > #841043 for src:python-jedi and prepare a team-upload? > > I need the RC fixed for the packaging of spyder. go ahead. I have almost working package with latest changes from upstream git repo but some tests still fail and I don't have time to work on it right now. -- Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645
Fattura TIM linea Fissa - Gennaio 2017 - scadenza 12/01/2017
<<< text/html: Unrecognized >>>
Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages
On 2017-01-18 07:46, Scott Kitterman wrote: > +··named·django_packagename·upstream.··These·are·then·packaged·as > +··python3-django-package·and please use "package" vs "packagename" consistently. e.g. an upstream named "django_packagename" should be packaged as "python3-django-packagename". It's kind of obvious, but I think the policy should be precise. (and probably use "" or "$packagename" or something else to mark it as variable) gfmadr IOhannes
