On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 06:13:28 PM Ben Finney wrote: > Thank you for the offer! I'm happy to work with you to get this > package ready.
:)
> > * New upstream release: let's package it please. There are only 10
> >
> > different files comparing to currently packaged version so there
> > should not be much of an effort to update the packaging.
>
> Yes, that's my plan. I have begun work on packaging the newer
> upstream, and also using Pybuild properly and other packaging
> improvements.
Awesome. Please let me know when package is ready.
> > * changelog: please replace "Closes: bug#768772" with "Closes:
> > #768772" (I'm not too sure if "bug#768772" works but as far as I can
> > tell this notation is unusual.
>
> I prefer to follow the Policy §4.4 recommendation (“[…] by including
> the string: closes: Bug#nnnnn in the change details.”).
>
> This is partly because it is the Policy recommendation, and partly
> because “Bug#nnnnn” is more explicit and reads better IMO.
OK.
> > * rules: Ben, please move your copyright attribution to
> >
> > "debian/copyright". The latter should mention licensing for debian
> > packaging.
>
> Even if the license conditions are deliberately the same as the
> “Files: *” paragraph? I thought one good reason to choose to grant
> license on ‘debian/*’ the same as the upstream work, was to not need
> those exceptions described.
But you need to add your own copyright statement. It is better when all
licensing/copyright information is consolidated in "debian/copyright".
That's OK if you insist to keep your copyright statement in "debian/rules"
but "debian/copyright" is a better place for it.
> > * rules: optional targets "get-(packaged-)orig-source" are
> >
> > redundant and merely invoke `uscan`.
>
> The ‘get-orig-source’ is strongly recommended by Debian Policy §4.9,
> so I don't think it's a good idea to remove it until Policy no longer
> has that clause.
>
> The ‘get-packaged-orig-source’ is needed because the Policy-conformant
> ‘get-orig-source’ behaviour doesn't match what most people expect (and
> the way ‘foo-buildpackage’ expects).
>
> So until Policy drops that recommendation, I'd prefer to keep those
> targets in order to conform with Policy as much as feasible.
As you wish.
> > * control: Vcs links do not work.
>
> Thanks, I will fix this in the next release.
>
> > I'd very much like if you could consider converting repository to
> > Git.
>
> Good, that's a medium-term goal. I learned Git only recently and most
> of my packages are maintained in Bazaar still.
>
> I do plan to migrate them all to Git once I have a better handle on
> the changes to the packaging workflow.
I tried to checkout package using "git-remote-bzr" but it did not work
probably because of incorrect Vcs-Bzr URL...
IMHO Git is not too hard to use unless you use git-buildpackage workflow.
Git repository may be helpful to your potential co-maintainers.
> I am learning steadily with my packaging work on ‘dput’, which already
> uses a Git repository. Perhaps you can sponsor my work on that too?
I'll make no promises on that one but I'll have a look (when time allows) if
you send me a separate email about that...
Thank you.
--
Regards,
Dmitry Smirnov.
---
Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their
illusions destroyed.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
