Don't add me to your debian/control Uploaders when it is untrue

2021-04-02 Thread Otto Kekäläinen
Hello Julian!

I noticed that you've added me to several packages as the uploader:

Uploaders: Otto Kekäläinen ,

Please do not do it. I have not reviewed/uploaded (to my knowledge) any of
those packages and it is wrong to list me there as an uploader. Do not do
this for new packages and remove me from the old packages next time you
upload a new version (not urgent).


Keep up working on Debian but just keep the debian/control metadata correct.


Re: Package naming advice: python3-pyls-jsonrpc or python3-jsonrpc-server?

2020-11-01 Thread Otto Kekäläinen

> When you say "follow that", do you mean for the Debian source package
> name (.dsc, like dbus-python), or for the Debian binary package name
> (.deb, like python3-dbus)?

We'll go with 'python3-pyls-jsonrpc' for the binary package.

> The binary package name should be mechanically derived from what you
> import. If you 'import pyls_jsonrpc', then python3-pyls-jsonrpc is right.
> If you 'import pyls.jsonrpc', then python3-pyls.jsonrpc, and so on.

We plan to keep the source package name and repository name as
'python-jsonrpc-server' to follow upstream.

Thanks for all your help!

Re: What is the new maintainer address for Python team?

2020-11-01 Thread Otto Kekäläinen
> New/correct address is:
> Maintainer: Debian Python Team 

Thanks. Now that this is clear I'll proceed to update it to all of the
packages I am involved in.

Package naming advice: python3-pyls-jsonrpc or python3-jsonrpc-server?

2020-11-01 Thread Otto Kekäläinen

I am currently reviewing the Debian packaging at of
the upstream project

Upstream uses 'python-jsonrpc-server' as the repository and also the
pip package name. Should we follow that in Debian or perhaps use the
alternative name 'python3-pyls-jsonrpc'?

Is there some existing naming convention/policy about Python modules
of this sort?

- Otto

What is the new maintainer address for Python team?

2020-08-31 Thread Otto Kekäläinen

I've been using the address
as the maintainer address in my packages, but the address no longer
works. I tried looking at what other packages have, but there are no
working examples

So dear list members, what is the correct address to use now as no longer works for the
Maintainer field in d/control files?

- Otto

Re: Offer to help with packaging

2020-06-28 Thread Otto Kekäläinen

I just wanted to chip in that I have been mentoring Pablo and he is
very committed and has already worked with several packages and is
proficient in using git, Salsa MR, Salsa CI etc workflow.

If you have some newcomer friendly or intermediate level tasks, please
get in touch with Pablo!

- Otto

Re-introducing colortest-python to Debian (Re: Where can I find packages that need a maintainer?)

2020-03-21 Thread Otto Kekäläinen

I am branching this off to its own topic to keep the communication clear.

First of all, a recap of current status:
- Python 2 colortest got removed from Debian repos in September 2019:
- Pablo has packaged Python 3 colortest and with my sponsoring it was
submitted to Debian, and has been sitting in the NEW queue for a month
- Debian ftp-masters are overworked, the NEW queue processing will
take some time
- We have not had any feedback whatsoever from the ftp-masters yet

And then to the tasks at hand:

ma 24. helmik. 2020 klo 9.24 Paul Wise ( kirjoitti:
> Principally this is about reopening bugs closed by the removal and
> then triaging them and closing any fixed in the new version.
> Last time I needed to do this, I ran this hacky shell one-liner:
> bts $(for bug in $(curl
> ';src=colortest-python'
> | pandoc -f html -t plain --wrap none | grep -B1 -F +rm | grep -o
> \#[0-9]\\+ | tr -d \#) ; do echo -n "unarchive $bug , reopen $bug , ";
> done)
> For your package it gives this command:
> bts unarchive 753281 , reopen 753281 , unarchive 936320 , reopen
> 936320 , unarchive 782208 , reopen 782208 , unarchive 890074 , reopen
> 890074 ,

Pablo: using this link you can see all bugs (also archived ones) for

The status is currently "closed" for all of them, since they got
mass-closed when the package was removed from Debian. From

[Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2019 04:42:39 +] [ftpmaster: Scott Kitterman]
Removed the following packages from unstable:

colortest-python |  2.2-1 | source, all
Closed bugs: 920127

--- Reason ---
python2-only; orphaned; dead upstream; low popcon
Also closing bug(s): 753281 782208 890074 936320
Also closing WNPP bug(s):

The mass-closed ones should be unarchived and reopened as Paul Wise
suggest. Please do that.

Then later, when the new colortest-python enters Debian, you can close
all of these bugs since looking at the subjects, they are all fixed in
the new upload.

Regarding bugs, you should also submit a new bug report where you
state that you intend to adopt this package. We can then ask
ftp-masters to add their NEW queue feedback into this new bug report,
which basically would be:

Title: ITA: colortest-python -- utility to test color capabilities of terminal
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal


I would like to adopt this package.

Work has already been done at
and package submitted to NEW in

After that we keep waiting for the ftp-masters to review.

- Otto

Re: Where can I find packages that need a maintainer?

2020-02-16 Thread Otto Kekäläinen

I mentored Pablo to get his first upload to Debian. Pablo is new to
Debian packaging but a good and persistent learner. I warmly recommend
working with him if you have some newcomer friendly tasks to suggest!

Salsa repo deletion request: modules/colortest-python

2020-01-07 Thread Otto Kekäläinen

I accidentally created a new repo in wrong project group.

Can somebody with admin permissions please go to and
delete it?

This is the correct repo that shall be kept:

Thank you!

Request to join Python team

2019-07-27 Thread Otto Kekäläinen

I would like to join the Python packaging team.

My intention is to adopt rdiff-backup

My Salsa username is 'otto'. I have read and agree with:

- Otto Kekäläinen