Re: DPMT and git workflows
IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote: > On 01/19/2018 12:45 PM, Simon McVittie wrote: >> Relatedly, Alioth is going to be shut down at some point, with git >> repositories frozen and made read-only, so it would seem a good idea to >> start migrating git packaging to salsa.debian.org before that happens. >> python-modules-team and python-apps-team groups, perhaps? I can create >> a python-modules-team group and migrate tap.py as a sample if people >> would like to see an example package. >> > > should we keep the structure of putting all packages into a separate > subdir (aka "sub-group"). I don't think there is anything to be gained by that and there are some limitations on sub-groups in salsa such as not being able to have rendered websites (that feature is prototyped but not yet enabled). > i was also thinking about creating a single python-team group with a > PAPT and a DPMT subgroup, but apart from aesthetics i cannot think of > any good reason to do so. it probably creates more trouble than it is > worth. I don't know the historical origins of this split and I have never seen the advantage in splitting the two groups. Maybe it's time to have PAPT do the svn→git transition and put everything in the same debian-python-team? cheers Stuart -- Stuart Prescotthttp://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org GPG fingerprint90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7
Re: [tryton-debian] Bug#877849: Namespace conflict for python-magic
* Christoph Biedl: " Re: [tryton-debian] Bug#877849: Namespace conflict for python-magic" (Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:37:51 +0100): Hi Christoph, > Mathias Behrle wrote... > > > I found > > > > $ apt-cache rdepends python-magic > (...) > > Yeah, I already had checked a few of them where possible with little > efforts. These were the test I had been talking of (actually, including > python3-magic rdeps as well). > > > May be we should signal them explicitely to test the new package in > > experimental? What do you think? > > My plan is to send a call for testing to debian-devel once python-magic > has been accepted. It shouldn't hurt to add the dd-list output for these > packages. That would be 27 addresses. I might be convinced to send out > individual notices - but I think that's exaggerting. Odds for bugs are > fairly low, and there's still a lot of time until the buster freeze to > detect and fix them. > > Christoph, it's called "unstable" for a reason JFTR: relatorio_0.8.0-1~exp1 was just built and uploaded. It builds against python-magic (>=2:0.4.15-1~exp1) and all tests are passing succesfully. Mathias -- Mathias Behrle PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6 AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71 7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6 pgpxeGjmgUq8Y.pgp Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
Re: DPMT and git workflows
On 01/19/2018 12:45 PM, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 at 14:25:57 +0300, Dmitry Shachnev wrote: >> I think for new packages it is better to use gbp-pq based workflow: >> https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ > > Is there consensus that the gbp-pq workflow is now allowed? I only > maintain one package in DPMT (tap.py) and every time I upload it I have > to remind myself how git-dpm works, so I'd like to switch it over to > gbp-pq as soon as I can. > > Relatedly, Alioth is going to be shut down at some point, with git > repositories frozen and made read-only, so it would seem a good idea to > start migrating git packaging to salsa.debian.org before that happens. > python-modules-team and python-apps-team groups, perhaps? I can create > a python-modules-team group and migrate tap.py as a sample if people > would like to see an example package. > should we keep the structure of putting all packages into a separate subdir (aka "sub-group"). i was also thinking about creating a single python-team group with a PAPT and a DPMT subgroup, but apart from aesthetics i cannot think of any good reason to do so. it probably creates more trouble than it is worth. gfards IOhannes signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DPMT and git workflows
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 at 14:25:57 +0300, Dmitry Shachnev wrote: > I think for new packages it is better to use gbp-pq based workflow: > https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ Is there consensus that the gbp-pq workflow is now allowed? I only maintain one package in DPMT (tap.py) and every time I upload it I have to remind myself how git-dpm works, so I'd like to switch it over to gbp-pq as soon as I can. Relatedly, Alioth is going to be shut down at some point, with git repositories frozen and made read-only, so it would seem a good idea to start migrating git packaging to salsa.debian.org before that happens. python-modules-team and python-apps-team groups, perhaps? I can create a python-modules-team group and migrate tap.py as a sample if people would like to see an example package. smcv
Re: FYI: Fwd: RFS: pygithub/1.35-1[ITA]
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:14:41PM +0100, Filip Pytloun wrote: > Hello Emmanuel, > > few notes to your package: > > - it would be good to move under DPMT (have you joined the team > already?), create git repository and use git-dpm to import current > version and make your changes, also set Maintainer and Vcs-* to > reflect this I think for new packages it is better to use gbp-pq based workflow: https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ git-dpm is unmaintained and is (IMO) more difficult to work with. -- Dmitry Shachnev signature.asc Description: PGP signature
