Path: csiph.com!1.us.feeder.erje.net!news.misty.com!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: =?utf-8?Q?Antoine_Beaupr=C3=A9?= Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2022 15:50:01 +0200 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: Ben Westover X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Tue Jun 7 13:47:31 2022 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.021 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.801, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, USER_IN_DKIM_WELCOMELIST=-0.01, USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -3.5 Organization: Debian MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/19976 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/87sfogziu5.fsf@curie.anarc.at Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 51 Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Cc: debian-python@lists.debian.org X-Original-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2022 09:47:14 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <87sfogziu5.fsf@curie.anarc.at> X-Original-References: <87sfohoni3.fsf@curie.anarc.at> <0f84e96b-c0eb-2d0e-fc7e-a8b272549aea@gmail.com> <87fskhb44h.fsf@angela.anarc.at> <367c1fcc-e57e-bde4-61eb-787042586a60@gmail.com> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:14149 On 2022-06-06 22:42:53, Ben Westover wrote: > Hello Antoine, > >>>> I am aware of this failure and have reported it upstream. For now, I'll >>>> disable the offending test. >>> >>> After doing that, I discovered that almost all of the tests are faulty >>> (at least on Python 3.10), so I've disabled tests altogether for now. >> >> Does the package *work* at all in 3.10? We might not want to silence >> real errors here... > > Upstream says 3.4-3.9 is supported, but I don't know if that's because > 3.10 doesn't work or because they haven't bothered to add it. Searching > their bug tracker, I wasn't able to find any 3.10-related issues yet. > I also haven't tried to use the program with Python 3.10, because I > don't use it myself at all (packaging this for a friend). I think it's worth doing a trial run in an actual unstable VM before disabling those tests. Otherwise we're just guessing and we might put a completely non-working package out there... That's going to help no one: neither our users or upstream... >>> _version.py is not a copy of versioneer, it's *generated* by versioneer. >>> However, there is versioneer.py in the root directory, which is. I'll >>> exclude that from the source and repack. >> >> hmm... how about that generated file though? shouldn't it be ... well, >> generated at build time instead? :) > > As far as I understand it, this file is used by the author of the > program, not end users. I don't understand it well, though, because I > haven't put much time into researching what versioneer even does. > If my hunch is correct, I may be able to just remove the file from the > source altogether, but I haven't tried that yet. Well, it's used by the program to show the version info, so it's *eventually* used by users for sure. I think just removing the file is a good first guess. >> let me know when / if you need me to look at it again, and thanks again! > > It should be ready for review now, as long as I haven't messed anything > up majorly in my attempts to fix the issues you brought to my attention. Did you remove the versioneer file though? -- Striving for social justice is the most valuable thing to do in life - Albert Einstein