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

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #8873 > unrolled thread

Review/sponsorship of osmalchemy package

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

Contents

  Review/sponsorship of osmalchemy package Dominik George <nik@naturalnet.de> - 2016-09-12 15:40 +0200
    Re: Review/sponsorship of osmalchemy package Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2016-09-28 00:50 +0200
      [WAS: Re: Review/sponsorship of osmalchemy package] md , rst, txt,  html, ... Jerome BENOIT <sphericaltriangle@rezozer.net> - 2016-09-28 01:30 +0200
        Re: [WAS: Re: Review/sponsorship of osmalchemy package] md , rst,  txt, html, ... Guido van Steen <vansteen@users.sourceforge.net> - 2016-09-28 08:30 +0200
      Re: Review/sponsorship of osmalchemy package Piotr Ożarowski <piotr@debian.org> - 2016-09-28 11:40 +0200
        Re: Review/sponsorship of osmalchemy package Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de> - 2016-10-02 23:30 +0200
          Re: Review/sponsorship of osmalchemy package Piotr Ożarowski <piotr@debian.org> - 2016-10-03 10:20 +0200
            Re: Review/sponsorship of osmalchemy package Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org> - 2016-10-03 10:30 +0200
              Re: Review/sponsorship of osmalchemy package Piotr Ożarowski <piotr@debian.org> - 2016-10-03 11:20 +0200
                Re: Review/sponsorship of osmalchemy package Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org> - 2016-10-03 11:30 +0200
            Re: Review/sponsorship of osmalchemy package Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de> - 2016-10-22 21:50 +0200
      Re: Review/sponsorship of osmalchemy package Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org> - 2016-09-28 14:30 +0200
        Re: Review/sponsorship of osmalchemy package Piotr Ożarowski <piotr@debian.org> - 2016-09-28 14:40 +0200

#8873 — Review/sponsorship of osmalchemy package

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

Hi,

I would like to ask for review and sponsorship of the osmalchemy package.

It can be found in the usual place at:
git.debian.org:/git/python-modules/packages/osmalchemy.git

The package can be build with gbp using pristine-tar. It appears to be
lintian-clean, apart from a missing upstream changelog (which upstream,
i.e. me, myself and I, will fix in a future release ;)).

OSMAlchemy will be used in several projects that will run on Debian;
it was also feaured at the Python Unconference in Germany last weekend
and many people like it and would like to use it, so adding it to Debian
seems legit (it has also a quite low impact on the repo, as it has only
few dependencies, so nothing bad to expect there).

Thanks in advance for looking at the package,
Nik

-- 
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17  FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296

Dominik George · Mobil: +49-1520-1981389

Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor

LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#8907

On 09/12/2016 03:39 PM, Dominik George wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I would like to ask for review and sponsorship of the osmalchemy package.
> 
> It can be found in the usual place at:
> git.debian.org:/git/python-modules/packages/osmalchemy.git
> 
> The package can be build with gbp using pristine-tar. It appears to be
> lintian-clean, apart from a missing upstream changelog (which upstream,
> i.e. me, myself and I, will fix in a future release ;)).
> 
> OSMAlchemy will be used in several projects that will run on Debian;
> it was also feaured at the Python Unconference in Germany last weekend
> and many people like it and would like to use it, so adding it to Debian
> seems legit (it has also a quite low impact on the repo, as it has only
> few dependencies, so nothing bad to expect there).
> 
> Thanks in advance for looking at the package,
> Nik

Here's my comments.

debian/changelog:
=================
* Please just write "Initial debian release".

debian/control:
===============
* Please remove "X-Python3-Version: >= 3.2". Even Jessie has Python 3.2,
so we really don't need to set such lower bound.

* Please set "Priority: extra" and not optional.

* You may want to run "wrap-and-sort -t -a" to clean-up your
debian/control fields (YMMV).

debian/copyright:
=================
* There's multiple MIT licenses. Therefore, the most common MIT license,
we call it "Expat" in Debian (not sure why, but it's like that...). So
please replace MIT by Expat.

debian/docs:
============
* It looks like the README.rst could be transformed into .html using
sphinx. Could you do that? It'd look a lot nicer.

debian/python3-osmalchemy.lintian-overrides:
============================================
* Why do you think you need such a file? The issue is there, it's not a
false positive, so just leave lintian complain. It gives a warning, not
a hard error, so that's fine.

Everything else looked ok to me, though it was only a quick look...

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

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

#8908 — [WAS: Re: Review/sponsorship of osmalchemy package] md , rst, txt, html, ...

Hello Forum,

On 27/09/16 23:41, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> debian/docs:
> ============
> * It looks like the README.rst could be transformed into .html using
> sphinx. Could you do that? It'd look a lot nicer.


Some software comes with a README.md, README.rst, ...
which are the same version of a text but written in different format:
Must we pick up one ? If so, which one ? or may we transform one of them
in txt (or html) ?

Thanks,
Jerome

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

#8909 — Re: [WAS: Re: Review/sponsorship of osmalchemy package] md , rst, txt, html, ...

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

Hi Jerome,

I may not fully understand the issue, but why not keep *.md, *.rst, *.pod,
etc. the way they are?

The main advantage of *.md, *.rst, *.pod, etc. is their readability. Their
additional advantage is that they can easily be transferred into *.html or
many other formats, if desired.

A missing man page might make such a conversion necessary. In that case a
*.md, *.rst, *.pod, or a .whatever file could be converted into *.*roff,
which should be done during build process.

Standard conversion of *.md, *.rst, *.pod, etc. to *.txt is IMO a plain bad
idea, because *.md, *.rst, *.pod files are meant to be readable text files
anyway.

Best wishes,

Guido van Steen

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

#8910

[Thomas Goirand, 2016-09-28]
> * Please set "Priority: extra" and not optional.

why? I know ftp-masters change all packages from optional to extra but I
probably missed an announcement about the reason...
-- 
Piotr Ożarowski                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer
www.ozarowski.pl          www.griffith.cc           www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645

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

#8921

On 09/28/2016 11:31 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Thomas Goirand, 2016-09-28]
>> * Please set "Priority: extra" and not optional.
> 
> why? I know ftp-masters change all packages from optional to extra but I
> probably missed an announcement about the reason...


Because of
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-priorities
maybe? :)

-- 
 Bernd Zeimetz                            Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.de                                http://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485  DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F

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

#8922

> >> * Please set "Priority: extra" and not optional.
> > 
> > why? I know ftp-masters change all packages from optional to extra but I
> > probably missed an announcement about the reason...
> 
> 
> Because of
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-priorities
> maybe? :)

I don't see anything new here. I always used optional unless one of
dependencies was already non-optional. If libraries get Priority=extra
by default, where do f.e. -doc packages go now?
-- 
Piotr Ożarowski                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer
www.ozarowski.pl          www.griffith.cc           www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645

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

#8923

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

On 2016-10-03 10:12:04, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> > >> * Please set "Priority: extra" and not optional.
> > > 
> > > why? I know ftp-masters change all packages from optional to extra but I
> > > probably missed an announcement about the reason...
> > 
> > 
> > Because of
> > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-priorities
> > maybe? :)
> 
> I don't see anything new here. I always used optional unless one of
> dependencies was already non-optional. If libraries get Priority=extra
> by default, where do f.e. -doc packages go now?

Where is the myth that they change priority to extra even coming from?

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

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

#8924

[Sebastian Ramacher, 2016-10-03]
> > > > why? I know ftp-masters change all packages from optional to extra but I
> > > > probably missed an announcement about the reason...
[...]
> Where is the myth that they change priority to extra even coming from?

all my NEW packages have extra by default even though I set optional.

See f.e. python-async-timeout
At least on https://packages.qa.debian.org/p/python-async-timeout.html
(which also states section=misc instead of python). In the past I also
received an email after *each* upload about section mismatch.
-- 
Piotr Ożarowski                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer
www.ozarowski.pl          www.griffith.cc           www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645

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

#8925

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

On 2016-10-03 11:19:10, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Sebastian Ramacher, 2016-10-03]
> > > > > why? I know ftp-masters change all packages from optional to extra but I
> > > > > probably missed an announcement about the reason...
> [...]
> > Where is the myth that they change priority to extra even coming from?
> 
> all my NEW packages have extra by default even though I set optional.
> 
> See f.e. python-async-timeout
> At least on https://packages.qa.debian.org/p/python-async-timeout.html
> (which also states section=misc instead of python). In the past I also
> received an email after *each* upload about section mismatch.

This is the section and priority of the *source* package (which to my
understanding does not have any meaning at all). The binary packages correctly
have

% apt-cache show python3-async-timeout | egrep "Section|Priority"
Section: python
Priority: optional

Cheers
-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

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

#8954

On 10/03/2016 10:12 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>>>> * Please set "Priority: extra" and not optional.
>>>
>>> why? I know ftp-masters change all packages from optional to extra but I
>>> probably missed an announcement about the reason...
>>
>>
>> Because of
>> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-priorities
>> maybe? :)
> 
> I don't see anything new here. I always used optional unless one of
> dependencies was already non-optional. If libraries get Priority=extra
> by default, where do f.e. -doc packages go now?

They also go to extra.

optional:
"This is all the software that you might reasonably want to install if
you didn't know what it was ....."

... so you think people who don't know what osmalchemy is need to
install it?



-- 
 Bernd Zeimetz                            Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.de                                http://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485  DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F

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

#8911

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

Hi Thomas,

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:41:22AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> debian/docs:
> ============
> * It looks like the README.rst could be transformed into .html using
> sphinx. Could you do that? It'd look a lot nicer.

Sphinx is an overkill here. For a simple file like this, one can use
rst2html (from python3-docutils package).

--
Dmitry Shachnev

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

#8912

[Dmitry Shachnev, 2016-09-28]
> > * It looks like the README.rst could be transformed into .html using
> > sphinx. Could you do that? It'd look a lot nicer.
> 
> Sphinx is an overkill here. For a simple file like this, one can use
> rst2html (from python3-docutils package).

even if you convert it, please keep the rst file, I prefer rst over html
-- 
Piotr Ożarowski                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer
www.ozarowski.pl          www.griffith.cc           www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web