Request to join PAPT
Hello! I am interested in joining the Python Applications Packaging Team. I'm experienced in packaging for Debian and am an active member of the Window Maker and Science teams. However, I don't have much experience with Python packaging yet and am looking for some guidance and extra sets of eyes on any packages that I might maintain under the PAPT umbrella. Currently, I maintain one package which I think would be a good fit for the team, git-big-picture [1]. It's currently out of testing with RC bug #936615. However, I've packaged a new upstream version which fixes it, and I think it's almost ready for review and sponsorship. My Salsa username is dtorrance-guest. I have read and agree to the PAPT Policy. Thanks! Doug Torrance [1] https://salsa.debian.org/dtorrance-guest/git-big-picture
Re: mailing-list-obsolete-in-debian-infrastructure warning
On 20-04-23 20 h 52, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > On April 24, 2020 12:26:27 AM UTC, "Louis-Philippe Véronneau" > wrote: >> On 20-04-23 17 h 54, Scott Kitterman wrote: >>> On Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:21:49 PM EDT Rebecca N. Palmer wrote: This warning was added to Lintian today, after being requested in #958182. It appears on thousands of packages: >> https://lintian.debian.org/tags/mailing-list-obsolete-in-debian-infrastructu re.html >>> >>> Thanks. I mailed the bug to point out this tag is currently >> problematic. >> >> FWIW, I proposed we merge the DPMT and the PAPT a few months ago [1] >> and >> migrate to team+pyt...@tracker.debian.org. >> >> That would also solve the current issue with lintian :) >> >> [1]: >> https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/-/merge_requests/10 > > And I don't think the response was particularly positive. My recollection > was that there's a preference for two teams because packages and modules have > different needs. Hmm, from the discussions we had on the mailing list and on Salsa the feedback was mainly positive actually. Happy to talk some more about it either on Salsa or on the ML: https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2019/10/msg00021.html > > I don't think we should let an artificial sense of urgency because lintian > push us in to anything (apologies if I'm remembering the wrong instance of > this being suggested - it's happened before). Agreed :) Sorry for disrupting this thread. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ po...@debian.org / veronneau.org ⠈⠳⣄ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: mailing-list-obsolete-in-debian-infrastructure warning
On April 24, 2020 12:26:27 AM UTC, "Louis-Philippe Véronneau" wrote: >On 20-04-23 17 h 54, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:21:49 PM EDT Rebecca N. Palmer wrote: >>> This warning was added to Lintian today, after being requested in >>> #958182. It appears on thousands of packages: >>> >https://lintian.debian.org/tags/mailing-list-obsolete-in-debian-infrastructu >>> re.html >> >> Thanks. I mailed the bug to point out this tag is currently >problematic. > >FWIW, I proposed we merge the DPMT and the PAPT a few months ago [1] >and >migrate to team+pyt...@tracker.debian.org. > >That would also solve the current issue with lintian :) > >[1]: >https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/-/merge_requests/10 And I don't think the response was particularly positive. My recollection was that there's a preference for two teams because packages and modules have different needs. I don't think we should let an artificial sense of urgency because lintian push us in to anything (apologies if I'm remembering the wrong instance of this being suggested - it's happened before). Scott K
Re: mailing-list-obsolete-in-debian-infrastructure warning
On 20-04-23 17 h 54, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:21:49 PM EDT Rebecca N. Palmer wrote: >> This warning was added to Lintian today, after being requested in >> #958182. It appears on thousands of packages: >> https://lintian.debian.org/tags/mailing-list-obsolete-in-debian-infrastructu >> re.html > > Thanks. I mailed the bug to point out this tag is currently problematic. FWIW, I proposed we merge the DPMT and the PAPT a few months ago [1] and migrate to team+pyt...@tracker.debian.org. That would also solve the current issue with lintian :) [1]: https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/-/merge_requests/10 -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ po...@debian.org / veronneau.org ⠈⠳⣄ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: mailing-list-obsolete-in-debian-infrastructure warning
On Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:21:49 PM EDT Rebecca N. Palmer wrote: > This warning was added to Lintian today, after being requested in > #958182. It appears on thousands of packages: > https://lintian.debian.org/tags/mailing-list-obsolete-in-debian-infrastructu > re.html Thanks. I mailed the bug to point out this tag is currently problematic. Scott K
Re: mailing-list-obsolete-in-debian-infrastructure warning
This warning was added to Lintian today, after being requested in #958182. It appears on thousands of packages: https://lintian.debian.org/tags/mailing-list-obsolete-in-debian-infrastructure.html
Re: todoman_3.7.0-2_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
Sandro also noted it, and it's already fixed. Thanks, -- Félix signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: todoman_3.7.0-2_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
This one has the same issue. Scott K On Thursday, April 23, 2020 1:05:23 PM EDT Debian FTP Masters wrote: > Accepted: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > Format: 1.8 > Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 18:39:20 +0200 > Source: todoman > Architecture: source > Version: 3.7.0-2 > Distribution: unstable > Urgency: medium > Maintainer: Debian Python Team > Changed-By: Félix Sipma > Changes: > todoman (3.7.0-2) unstable; urgency=medium > . >* move the package to Debian Python Team >* bump Standards-Version to 4.5.0 (no change required) >* make use of dh_sphinxdoc > Checksums-Sha1: > c9a5a6c19949ea901dd18fb506f443dc815f744a 1905 todoman_3.7.0-2.dsc > a7d48bdd9e3704782b607f79426dea4cb0e74b51 8792 todoman_3.7.0-2.debian.tar.xz > Checksums-Sha256: > 2c37c319760bf289400d8897a4028470b464539585bb463c9a4af34832c57640 1905 > todoman_3.7.0-2.dsc > d9c343a2dea2f39a77505820cfb169de104d4ca2efa0d8691c070114ab92a1db 8792 > todoman_3.7.0-2.debian.tar.xz Files: > ecc64aedae81de7c17e81acb0b8e71fb 1905 utils optional todoman_3.7.0-2.dsc > a512649e075c04c069d0b89a5f7b854c 8792 utils optional > todoman_3.7.0-2.debian.tar.xz > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > > iHUEARYKAB0WIQR6zeIsS8L0XLQfqiQBpfxHUdFE8AUCXqHF1AAKCRABpfxHUdFE > 8PDNAQCP/CRZt73P/FkX+uyurE9roJULZbLHtJb3aPZmktRAoQEAhgihrb3OY7qs > fF8bbfnzAy6uyQ62FvzWQGdI/85k5QQ= > =fWLV > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > > Thank you for your contribution to Debian.
todoman_3.7.0-2_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 18:39:20 +0200 Source: todoman Architecture: source Version: 3.7.0-2 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Python Team Changed-By: Félix Sipma Changes: todoman (3.7.0-2) unstable; urgency=medium . * move the package to Debian Python Team * bump Standards-Version to 4.5.0 (no change required) * make use of dh_sphinxdoc Checksums-Sha1: c9a5a6c19949ea901dd18fb506f443dc815f744a 1905 todoman_3.7.0-2.dsc a7d48bdd9e3704782b607f79426dea4cb0e74b51 8792 todoman_3.7.0-2.debian.tar.xz Checksums-Sha256: 2c37c319760bf289400d8897a4028470b464539585bb463c9a4af34832c57640 1905 todoman_3.7.0-2.dsc d9c343a2dea2f39a77505820cfb169de104d4ca2efa0d8691c070114ab92a1db 8792 todoman_3.7.0-2.debian.tar.xz Files: ecc64aedae81de7c17e81acb0b8e71fb 1905 utils optional todoman_3.7.0-2.dsc a512649e075c04c069d0b89a5f7b854c 8792 utils optional todoman_3.7.0-2.debian.tar.xz -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iHUEARYKAB0WIQR6zeIsS8L0XLQfqiQBpfxHUdFE8AUCXqHF1AAKCRABpfxHUdFE 8PDNAQCP/CRZt73P/FkX+uyurE9roJULZbLHtJb3aPZmktRAoQEAhgihrb3OY7qs fF8bbfnzAy6uyQ62FvzWQGdI/85k5QQ= =fWLV -END PGP SIGNATURE- Thank you for your contribution to Debian.
Re: khard_0.16.1-1_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
On Thursday, April 23, 2020 1:06:42 PM EDT Félix Sipma wrote: > Note that changing the address triggers a lintian warning: > > W: khard source: mailing-list-obsolete-in-debian-infrastructure Python > Applications Packaging Team Python Applications Packaging Team is correct. Scott K
Processing of todoman_3.7.0-2_source.changes
todoman_3.7.0-2_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: todoman_3.7.0-2.dsc todoman_3.7.0-2.debian.tar.xz Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)
Re: khard_0.16.1-1_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
Note that changing the address triggers a lintian warning: W: khard source: mailing-list-obsolete-in-debian-infrastructure Python Applications Packaging Team -- Félix signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: khard_0.16.1-1_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
Sorry, I thought this had been updated! -- Félix signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: khard_0.16.1-1_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:51 PM Debian FTP Masters wrote: > > > > Accepted: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > Format: 1.8 > Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:05:57 +0200 > Source: khard > Architecture: source > Version: 0.16.1-1 > Distribution: unstable > Urgency: medium > Maintainer: Debian Python Team this is not the right team and/or email address since it's in PAPT you need to use :"Python Applications Packaging Team " please fix this package and todoman (and any other you may be working on that had the same issue) > Changed-By: Félix Sipma > Closes: 942416 > Changes: > khard (0.16.1-1) unstable; urgency=medium > . >* New upstream version 0.16.1 (Closes: #942416) >* move the package to Debian Python Team >* update B-D, add: > - python3-sphinx-autodoc-typehints > - python3-sphinx-autoapi > - python3-astroids >* docs: remove AUTHORS file >* khard.examples: remove misc/khard >* khard.doc-base: update index path >* update patches >* bump Standards-Version to 4.5.0 > Checksums-Sha1: > 5d118c0de53fbf531bb6c64e945afc9aa2ff5479 1680 khard_0.16.1-1.dsc > 236c06ad9c4ef2629617772cdccf4dd55546b86b 577538 khard_0.16.1.orig.tar.gz > 4da10c05179540344d6a55d0b03d877cc7ae008f 4964 khard_0.16.1-1.debian.tar.xz > Checksums-Sha256: > 99436155dda2dcb5b00e3eedac729f9c2bbaa5b27a181f05a7b303dfa1849d81 1680 > khard_0.16.1-1.dsc > 9a50273bc827da99afc4dc8840be02dc37a22c2bfc88a04ed348f60389f14f2e 577538 > khard_0.16.1.orig.tar.gz > b2b8d00529cf4affcf74433b02728d25496802f65e3f4c0dc7ac0eaa7d26ad38 4964 > khard_0.16.1-1.debian.tar.xz > Files: > b2f4d2430201b15533daef4ccaded2e8 1680 utils optional khard_0.16.1-1.dsc > 2d17f791b46ae6fb26ee820495084363 577538 utils optional > khard_0.16.1.orig.tar.gz > 513a09f3e14f73b8d8e72a35876e216d 4964 utils optional > khard_0.16.1-1.debian.tar.xz > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > > iHUEARYKAB0WIQR6zeIsS8L0XLQfqiQBpfxHUdFE8AUCXqG/4QAKCRABpfxHUdFE > 8Kz0AP9bV/BlefuTLkF/Voj+lPLTxFJkfDszr0No/UCfmle7HAEAvAmbhESrLtCS > t1WtFBITZJmYC0m7BMGC2i4Mc3+H+QY= > =nBwe > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > > Thank you for your contribution to Debian. > -- Sandro "morph" Tosi My website: http://sandrotosi.me/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi
khard_0.16.1-1_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 10:05:57 +0200 Source: khard Architecture: source Version: 0.16.1-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Python Team Changed-By: Félix Sipma Closes: 942416 Changes: khard (0.16.1-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * New upstream version 0.16.1 (Closes: #942416) * move the package to Debian Python Team * update B-D, add: - python3-sphinx-autodoc-typehints - python3-sphinx-autoapi - python3-astroids * docs: remove AUTHORS file * khard.examples: remove misc/khard * khard.doc-base: update index path * update patches * bump Standards-Version to 4.5.0 Checksums-Sha1: 5d118c0de53fbf531bb6c64e945afc9aa2ff5479 1680 khard_0.16.1-1.dsc 236c06ad9c4ef2629617772cdccf4dd55546b86b 577538 khard_0.16.1.orig.tar.gz 4da10c05179540344d6a55d0b03d877cc7ae008f 4964 khard_0.16.1-1.debian.tar.xz Checksums-Sha256: 99436155dda2dcb5b00e3eedac729f9c2bbaa5b27a181f05a7b303dfa1849d81 1680 khard_0.16.1-1.dsc 9a50273bc827da99afc4dc8840be02dc37a22c2bfc88a04ed348f60389f14f2e 577538 khard_0.16.1.orig.tar.gz b2b8d00529cf4affcf74433b02728d25496802f65e3f4c0dc7ac0eaa7d26ad38 4964 khard_0.16.1-1.debian.tar.xz Files: b2f4d2430201b15533daef4ccaded2e8 1680 utils optional khard_0.16.1-1.dsc 2d17f791b46ae6fb26ee820495084363 577538 utils optional khard_0.16.1.orig.tar.gz 513a09f3e14f73b8d8e72a35876e216d 4964 utils optional khard_0.16.1-1.debian.tar.xz -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iHUEARYKAB0WIQR6zeIsS8L0XLQfqiQBpfxHUdFE8AUCXqG/4QAKCRABpfxHUdFE 8Kz0AP9bV/BlefuTLkF/Voj+lPLTxFJkfDszr0No/UCfmle7HAEAvAmbhESrLtCS t1WtFBITZJmYC0m7BMGC2i4Mc3+H+QY= =nBwe -END PGP SIGNATURE- Thank you for your contribution to Debian.
Processing of khard_0.16.1-1_source.changes
khard_0.16.1-1_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: khard_0.16.1-1.dsc khard_0.16.1.orig.tar.gz khard_0.16.1-1.debian.tar.xz Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)
Re: [Python-modules-team] python-xlib_0.26-1_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 23:44, Sandro Tosi wrote: > Andrej, > can you please clarify why you're keep using pristine-lfs even when > prompted not to? this is just from 2 packages uploaded in the last > hour (ftr, pyopenssl is broken now..) Sandro, wasn’t it all about pristine-tar missing? You (and others) use pristine-tar, you need pristine-tar data. I don’t like it and don’t use it, but okay, I don’t want you to get annoyed by the inability to follow your workflow, I try and use pristine-tar every time. But what’s wrong with also publishing a pristine-lfs branch? It doesn’t prevent you in any way from doing things the way you were doing before. I will look at what happened with pyopenssl. > https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules/pyopenssl/-/tree/pristine-lfs > https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules/urwid/-/tree/pristine-lfs > On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 3:31 PM Scott Kitterman wrote: > > The way to get the policy changed is not to ignore it and then get > > aggressive > > when called on it. Scott, I didn’t get aggressive, or, at least, it was not my intention. I’m sorry if it came across as such. I genuinely believe that pristine-tar should be gradually moved away from to something better, as I had a misfortune to work with it on a large scale (hundreds of packages) and I know how unreliable it sometimes is. Not only it routinely generated tarballs with different checksums, it sometimes failed to generate anything at all. I developed pristine-lfs as a proper tool with the UI compatible with pristine-tar (instead of just a custom script) specifically to help others use it without changing workflows much. -- Cheers, Andrej
