Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #17481

review for beets/2.9.0-1

Path	csiph.com!pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!srl.newsdeef.eu!news.corradoroberto.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From	Jeroen Ploemen <jcfp@debian.org>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.maint.python
Subject	review for beets/2.9.0-1
Date	Sun, 03 May 2026 17:50:01 +0200
Message-ID	<MQHeV-2joj-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
X-Mailbox-Line	From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Sun May 3 15:49:40 2026
Old-Return-Path	<jcfp@debian.org>
X-Amavis-Spam-Status	No, score=-115.41 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FOURLA=0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, MD5_SHA1_SUM=-1, PGPSIGNATURE=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_DKIM_WELCOMELIST=-0.01, USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Mailer	Claws Mail 4.4.0 (GTK 3.24.41; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version	1.0
Content-Type	multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/tH7=CJalso+l.0y9/N85jw8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Debian-User	jcfp
X-Mailing-List	<debian-python@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/23759
List-ID	<debian-python.lists.debian.org>
List-URL	<https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/>
List-Archive	https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20260503154921.59d3b4b8@debian.org
Approved	robomod@news.nic.it
Lines	74
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender	robomod@news.nic.it
X-Original-Cc	debian-python@lists.debian.org
X-Original-Date	Sun, 3 May 2026 15:49:21 -0000
X-Original-Message-ID	<20260503154921.59d3b4b8@debian.org>
Xref	csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:17481

Show key headers only | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

hi Pieter,

my review for the beets package:

* control: very specific version requirement for the dependency on
  python3-acoustid (= 1.3.1), while the upstream pyproject.toml
  specifies ^1.3.1 (note the caret) which if IIRC translates to
  >=1.3.1,<2;
* control: the build-dep on sphinx <9 has been overtaken by reality,
  with sphinx/9.1.0-1 already in unstable. Build seems to be fine
  with 9.1.0 too though.

  For both of the above, it's often an open question whether version
  restrictions declared by upstream are actually hard requirements or
  just a matter of "we prefer to have everyone use the version we
  tested with".

* tests: d/tests/control declares the same dependencies and
  restrictions for both tests, but basic_cli_functions only really
  needs the "beet" binary and no optional extras or test
  dependencies. Please give that test a separate entry in
  d/t/control, with the dependencies trimmed down to just
  the binary package, restrictions adjusted so stderr is not
  permitted, and the test marked superficial.

* tests: because of "set -e" the last line of basic_cli_functions
  (printing the exit status) is only ever reached in case the 'beet
  -version' command succeeds which is probably not what you intended.

  If you remove that line so that 'beet --version' is the last
  command run, its exit status would determine the exit status of the
  script as a whole, which in turn is logged automatically by the
  autopkgtest runner.

  Alternatively, if you like the script to output the exit status, you
  could remove the "set -e", but then you'd have to store the exit
  status of the beet command and use that to explicitly set the exit
  status of the test (preventing the echo command from making the test
  always succeed). See [1] for an example of that approach (albeit
  for a different reason).


Once the above comments have been addressed, simply re-add the
package to the IRC channel topic and/or ping me by e-mail.

[1]https://salsa.debian.org/jcfp/python-rarfile/-/blob/e96ae5664fe1a3d59fe6f18dbbbc1a8c6ca8d43e/debian/tests/upstream-tests

Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

review for beets/2.9.0-1 Jeroen Ploemen <jcfp@debian.org> - 2026-05-03 17:50 +0200
  Upstream dependency version requirements [Was: Re: review for  beets/2.9.0-1] Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> - 2026-05-04 14:20 +0200
    Re: Upstream dependency version requirements [Was: Re: review for  beets/2.9.0-1] Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> - 2026-05-04 15:40 +0200
    Re: Upstream dependency version requirements [Was: Re: review for  beets/2.9.0-1] Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> - 2026-05-05 11:50 +0200
      Re: Upstream dependency version requirements [Was: Re: review for  beets/2.9.0-1] "Pieter Lenaerts" <plenae@disroot.org> - 2026-05-06 08:40 +0200

csiph-web