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

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #13425 > unrolled thread

Bug#924643: RFS: colorzero/2.0-1 [ITP] -- Construct, convert, and manipulate colors in a Pythonic manner.

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.maint.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Bug#924643: RFS: colorzero/2.0-1 [ITP] -- Construct, convert, and manipulate colors in a Pythonic manner. Peter Green <plugwash@debian.org> - 2021-06-19 14:10 +0200
    Bug#924643: RFS: colorzero/2.0-1 [ITP] -- Construct, convert, and manipulate colors in a Pythonic manner. Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2021-06-19 23:10 +0200
    Bug#924643: RFS: colorzero/2.0-1 [ITP] -- Construct, convert, and manipulate colors in a Pythonic manner. Emmanuel Arias <eamanu@yaerobi.com> - 2021-06-19 23:50 +0200
      Bug#924643: RFS: colorzero/2.0-1 [ITP] -- Construct, convert, and manipulate colors in a Pythonic manner. Dave Jones <dave@waveform.org.uk> - 2021-06-21 16:10 +0200
        Bug#924643: RFS: colorzero/2.0-1 [ITP] -- Construct, convert, and manipulate colors in a Pythonic manner. Emmanuel Arias <eamanu@yaerobi.com> - 2021-06-21 18:40 +0200
          Bug#924643: RFS: colorzero/2.0-1 [ITP] -- Construct, convert, and manipulate colors in a Pythonic manner. Dave Jones <dave@waveform.org.uk> - 2021-06-21 21:20 +0200
    Bug#924643: RFS: colorzero/2.0-1 [ITP] -- Construct, convert, and manipulate colors in a Pythonic manner. Dave Jones <dave@waveform.org.uk> - 2021-06-21 13:50 +0200

#13425 — Bug#924643: RFS: colorzero/2.0-1 [ITP] -- Construct, convert, and manipulate colors in a Pythonic manner.

Just done some reviewing/tweaking. I've pushed the following changes to the git repo, please
tell me if you have any objections.

I added a gpb.conf to make git-buildpackage actually use pristine tar and hence result in an orig
tarball that was consistent with what is already in Ubuntu.

I found the clean target was not cleaning up the "egg-info" so I added a command to do that.

I added a closes: entry for the ITP bug.

---

That leaves one issue that I think still needs to be sorted before I sponsor the package.

The file "copyrights" has no license header and the git history says it was copied but not where
from. Poking around I discovered a script of the same name in gpiozero, containing what appears
to be the same code and committed by you with a commit message of "create copyright header", so
I presume this script is entirely your work, assuming it is I would suggest adding a copyright
header upstream and then picking the commit up as a Debian patch until there is another upstream
release.

Finally would you consider adding me as a co-maintainer.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#13426

On 6/19/21 2:03 PM, Peter Green wrote:
> Just done some reviewing/tweaking. I've pushed the following changes to
> the git repo, please
> tell me if you have any objections.
> 
> I added a gpb.conf to make git-buildpackage actually use pristine tar
> and hence result in an orig
> tarball that was consistent with what is already in Ubuntu.
> 
> I found the clean target was not cleaning up the "egg-info" so I added a
> command to do that.

I used to do that, but a few years ago, I switched to (and generalize in
all of my packages) using this:

$ cat debian/source/options
extend-diff-ignore = "^[^/]*[.]egg-info/"

That's a way more simple, as sometimes, upstream ships an egg-info and
building *modifies* it (and then, nightmare starts...).

Just my 2 cents of experience... :)

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13427

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

On 6/19/21 9:03 AM, Peter Green wrote:
> Just done some reviewing/tweaking. I've pushed the following changes
> to the git repo, please
> tell me if you have any objections.
>
> I added a gpb.conf to make git-buildpackage actually use pristine tar
> and hence result in an orig
> tarball that was consistent with what is already in Ubuntu.

Also, you can try to follow DEP-14 (although is mark as candidate) and
add debian/master as default branch.

What about enable salsa-ci?

> Finally would you consider adding me as a co-maintainer.
You are in the DPT so you already are a co-maintainer. You can add you
as uploaders I guess.


Cheers,


-- 
Emmanuel Arias
@eamanu
yaerobi.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13430

Hi Emmanuel,

On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 06:40:58PM -0300, Emmanuel Arias wrote:
>
>On 6/19/21 9:03 AM, Peter Green wrote:
>> Just done some reviewing/tweaking. I've pushed the following changes 
>> to the git repo, please tell me if you have any objections.
>>
>> I added a gpb.conf to make git-buildpackage actually use pristine tar 
>> and hence result in an orig tarball that was consistent with what is 
>> already in Ubuntu.
>
>Also, you can try to follow DEP-14 (although is mark as candidate) and 
>add debian/master as default branch.

Ah, this was something that confused me a bit when initially working on 
this. I'd read through DEP-14, but then figured a simple way to start 
would be to grab my existing packaging for Raspbian and use gbp 
import-dsc on it. This set up the repo with a "master" branch rather 
than "debian/master" and I then wondered if I'd mis-interpreted DEP-14's 
prescription to use "debian/master", and whether it meant one should use 
"debian" branch or alternatively a "master" branch.

Anyway, given it should be "debian/master" I'll get that corrected (I 
assume I'm right in thinking that'll need a 
"debian-branch=debian/master" addition to gbp.conf).

>What about enable salsa-ci?

Certainly something on the todo list, but not something I'd read up on 
yet. I'll have a look at that this afternoon.

Thanks,

Dave.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13431

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

Hi

On 6/21/21 11:06 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
> Hi Emmanuel,
>
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 06:40:58PM -0300, Emmanuel Arias wrote:
>>
>> On 6/19/21 9:03 AM, Peter Green wrote:
>>> Just done some reviewing/tweaking. I've pushed the following changes
>>> to the git repo, please tell me if you have any objections.
>>>
>>> I added a gpb.conf to make git-buildpackage actually use pristine
>>> tar and hence result in an orig tarball that was consistent with
>>> what is already in Ubuntu.
>>
>> Also, you can try to follow DEP-14 (although is mark as candidate)
>> and add debian/master as default branch.
>
> Ah, this was something that confused me a bit when initially working
> on this. I'd read through DEP-14, but then figured a simple way to
> start would be to grab my existing packaging for Raspbian and use gbp
> import-dsc on it. This set up the repo with a "master" branch rather
> than "debian/master" and I then wondered if I'd mis-interpreted
> DEP-14's prescription to use "debian/master", and whether it meant one
> should use "debian" branch or alternatively a "master" branch.
I think that I don't understand you, sorry :(. But DEP-14 recommend the
use of <vendor>/* for name the branchs, so for debian the branch should
be debian/*, for ubuntu ubuntu/*, etc.
>
> Anyway, given it should be "debian/master" I'll get that corrected (I
> assume I'm right in thinking that'll need a
> "debian-branch=debian/master" addition to gbp.conf).
>
yes. (and also create it first)
>> What about enable salsa-ci?
>
> Certainly something on the todo list, but not something I'd read up on
> yet. I'll have a look at that this afternoon.
>
I see that you already add the file. Don't forget activate ci in the
repository configuration :)

Cheers,

-- 
Emmanuel Arias
@eamanu
yaerobi.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13432

Hi Emmanuel,

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 01:33:11PM -0300, Emmanuel Arias wrote:
>On 6/21/21 11:06 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 06:40:58PM -0300, Emmanuel Arias wrote:
>>> Also, you can try to follow DEP-14 (although is mark as candidate)
>>> and add debian/master as default branch.
>>
>> Ah, this was something that confused me a bit when initially working
>> on this. I'd read through DEP-14, but then figured a simple way to
>> start would be to grab my existing packaging for Raspbian and use gbp
>> import-dsc on it. This set up the repo with a "master" branch rather
>> than "debian/master" and I then wondered if I'd mis-interpreted
>> DEP-14's prescription to use "debian/master", and whether it meant one
>> should use "debian" branch or alternatively a "master" branch.
>I think that I don't understand you, sorry :(. But DEP-14 recommend the
>use of <vendor>/* for name the branchs, so for debian the branch should
>be debian/*, for ubuntu ubuntu/*, etc.

Ah, sorry -- I'll attempt to elaborate my (rather silly) leap of 
"logic". Having read [PY-GIT] and [DEP-14], and knowing that gbp was 
specifically made for Debian packaging, after using "gbp import-dsc" I 
was slightly surprised to wind up on a "master" branch rather than 
"debian/master". I generally assume that tooling made specifically for a 
purpose (like Debian packaging) probably knows what it's doing better 
than I do, and hence I wondered whether I had missed something and 
whether (yes, it seems silly in hindsight, but still) the recommendation 
to use "debian/master" was to be interpreted as "debian or master" 
rather than a literal "debian/master" string.

Anyway, that's why I initially pushed a "master" branch rather than 
"debian/master" (under the assumption that gbp's defaults are probably a 
better bet than me trying to second guess the interpretation of 
standards :).

[PY-GIT] https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackaging#Git_Branch_Names
[DEP-14] https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep14/

In any case, I've fixed up the branches in the repo now and I *think* 
I've got the CI configuration in the right place, though it doesn't seem 
to have triggered a run yet. I've probably missed something in the repo 
config -- will dig into that in a mo.

Thanks for all the advice!

Dave.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13429

Hi Peter,

On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 01:03:31PM +0100, Peter Green wrote:
>Just done some reviewing/tweaking. I've pushed the following changes to 
>the git repo, please tell me if you have any objections.
>
>I added a gpb.conf to make git-buildpackage actually use pristine tar 
>and hence result in an orig tarball that was consistent with what is 
>already in Ubuntu.
>
>I found the clean target was not cleaning up the "egg-info" so I added 
>a command to do that.
>
>I added a closes: entry for the ITP bug.

No objections at all -- all looks good to me! Still getting used to gbp 
(I was testing the builds with sbuild prior to uploading to Salsa, hence 
why I missed the not-cleaning-up-egg-info).

>That leaves one issue that I think still needs to be sorted before I 
>sponsor the package.
>
>The file "copyrights" has no license header and the git history says it 
>was copied but not where from. Poking around I discovered a script of 
>the same name in gpiozero, containing what appears to be the same code 
>and committed by you with a commit message of "create copyright 
>header", so I presume this script is entirely your work, assuming it is 
>I would suggest adding a copyright header upstream and then picking the 
>commit up as a Debian patch until there is another upstream release.

You're absolutely correct I shamelessly copied my "copyrights" script 
from gpio-zero :). I'll add a copyright header on there in a mo and pick 
the commit as a patch.

>Finally would you consider adding me as a co-maintainer.

Certainly -- I'll add you to "Uploaders" as Emmanuel suggests later in 
the thread.

Thanks!

Dave.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.maint.python

csiph-web