Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #14152

Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package

Show key headers only | View raw

On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 09:47:33AM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2022-06-07 07:11:15, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > [...]
> > As far as I understand, versioneer (or the _version.py generated by
> > it) uses a whole bunch of heuristics to determine the version number
> > of the package, for example by looking at git tags and so on.  Several
> > times, I have found that _version.py in the PyPI release of a package
> > is a very small file (just a few lines long) stating the version
> > number of the package, while the _version.py in GitHub is huge and
> > doesn't work on a standalone packaged version.  If I recall correctly,
> > In more than one package I (co-)maintain, I've gone for the PyPI
> > version of this file.
> 
> Uh! So you just keep the file around altogether? That seems like a break
> of policy...

Maybe I wasn't clear: we pack the GitHub as the .orig.tar.gz and then
apply a patch (in debian/patches) to replace _version.py with the
version found in the PyPI package.  (There are often good reasons to
prefer the GitHub version over the PyPI version.)  I just looked
through my local packages and the only examples I could find were the
now-removed python-language-server and python-jsonrpc-server.

I'm not sure how this would break policy.

Best wishes,

   Julian

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

Thread

Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Ben Westover <kwestover.kw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-07 02:10 +0200
  Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Ben Westover <kwestover.kw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-07 03:20 +0200
    Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2022-06-07 04:30 +0200
      Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Ben Westover <kwestover.kw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-07 04:50 +0200
        Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2022-06-07 08:20 +0200
        Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-06-07 08:20 +0200
          Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2022-06-07 15:50 +0200
            Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-06-07 16:50 +0200
              Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-06-07 17:00 +0200
                Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Ben Westover <kwestover.kw@gmail.com> - 2022-06-08 00:50 +0200
                Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2022-06-08 15:30 +0200
              Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2022-06-07 17:00 +0200
        Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> - 2022-06-07 15:50 +0200
          Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-06-07 17:00 +0200
            Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-06-07 17:10 +0200
        Versioneer [was Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package] Timo Röhling <roehling@debian.org> - 2022-06-07 16:30 +0200
          Re: Versioneer [was Re: a review of your bumblebee-status package] Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2022-06-08 03:30 +0200

csiph-web