Sponsored upload: odil 0.8.0-1

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Sponsored upload: odil 0.8.0-1

Julien Lamy
Dear all,
I've updated the Git repository of Odil to the latest upstream version
(0.8.0). Modulo my question below, could I get a sponsored upload?

This version adds (among other things) Python 3 wrappers: even though
Lintian passes on both stretch and sid, could I get your advice if the
way I build the Python packages is correct (one build directory for
non-python, one build directory for each Python version, heavily
inspired by similar packages in the archive)?

Cheers,
--
Julien


signature.asc (817 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Sponsored upload: odil 0.8.0-1

Andreas Tille-6
Hi Julien,

thanks for your work on this.

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 01:25:52PM +0200, Julien Lamy wrote:
> Dear all,
> I've updated the Git repository of Odil to the latest upstream version
> (0.8.0). Modulo my question below, could I get a sponsored upload?
>
> This version adds (among other things) Python 3 wrappers: even though
> Lintian passes on both stretch and sid, could I get your advice if the
> way I build the Python packages is correct (one build directory for
> non-python, one build directory for each Python version, heavily
> inspired by similar packages in the archive)?

I think the Python 3 module package is fine as you did.

However, there are two things I'd like to point out:

  1. I think libodil0-dev and libodil0-doc should be renamed to
     libodil-dev and libodil-doc.  While adding the soversion to
     the library package libodil0 it is quite unusual to add a
     version to the development package (and the according doc).
     The rationale is that it might be necessary to install
     different soversion libs that should not conflict each other
     but you develop only against a single development package.
     Since we are now adding a new package (python3-odil) and
     the package has to pass new queue anyway it would be the
     right moment to fix this.
     If you do so please make sure you add according

       Provides: libodil0-dev
       Replaces: libodil0-dev
       Breaks: libodil0-dev

     to the libodil-dev package definition.

  2. Since we are in freeze I'd recommend uploading to
     experimental instead of unstable.  (See recent discussion
     also here on this list.)

Kind regards

     Andreas.


--
http://fam-tille.de

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Sponsored upload: odil 0.8.0-1

Julien Lamy
Hi Andreas,

Le 20/04/2017 à 16:33, Andreas Tille a écrit :

> Hi Julien,
>
> thanks for your work on this.
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 01:25:52PM +0200, Julien Lamy wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> I've updated the Git repository of Odil to the latest upstream version
>> (0.8.0). Modulo my question below, could I get a sponsored upload?
>>
>> This version adds (among other things) Python 3 wrappers: even though
>> Lintian passes on both stretch and sid, could I get your advice if the
>> way I build the Python packages is correct (one build directory for
>> non-python, one build directory for each Python version, heavily
>> inspired by similar packages in the archive)?
>
> I think the Python 3 module package is fine as you did.
>
> However, there are two things I'd like to point out:
>
>   1. I think libodil0-dev and libodil0-doc should be renamed to
>      libodil-dev and libodil-doc.  While adding the soversion to
>      the library package libodil0 it is quite unusual to add a
>      version to the development package (and the according doc).
>      The rationale is that it might be necessary to install
>      different soversion libs that should not conflict each other
>      but you develop only against a single development package.
>      Since we are now adding a new package (python3-odil) and
>      the package has to pass new queue anyway it would be the
>      right moment to fix this.
>      If you do so please make sure you add according
>
>        Provides: libodil0-dev
>        Replaces: libodil0-dev
>        Breaks: libodil0-dev
>
>      to the libodil-dev package definition.
What you describe makes a lot of sense: done in Git.

>   2. Since we are in freeze I'd recommend uploading to
>      experimental instead of unstable.  (See recent discussion
>      also here on this list.)

Who am I to argue with free policy? :) If I'm not mistaken, migration
from experimental to unstable is manual, and I'll have to ask for a new
sponsored upload if I want this version to appear in unstable after the
release of stretch?

Cheers,
--
Julien



signature.asc (817 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Sponsored upload: odil 0.8.0-1

Andreas Tille-5
Hi Julien,

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:32:15AM +0200, Julien Lamy wrote:

> > However, there are two things I'd like to point out:
> >
> >   1. I think libodil0-dev and libodil0-doc should be renamed to
> >      libodil-dev and libodil-doc.  While adding the soversion to
> >      the library package libodil0 it is quite unusual to add a
> >      version to the development package (and the according doc).
> >      The rationale is that it might be necessary to install
> >      different soversion libs that should not conflict each other
> >      but you develop only against a single development package.
> >      Since we are now adding a new package (python3-odil) and
> >      the package has to pass new queue anyway it would be the
> >      right moment to fix this.
> >      If you do so please make sure you add according
> >
> >        Provides: libodil0-dev
> >        Replaces: libodil0-dev
> >        Breaks: libodil0-dev
> >
> >      to the libodil-dev package definition.
>
> What you describe makes a lot of sense: done in Git.

:-)

I added the change to d/changelog and pushed.
 
> >   2. Since we are in freeze I'd recommend uploading to
> >      experimental instead of unstable.  (See recent discussion
> >      also here on this list.)
>
> Who am I to argue with free policy? :) If I'm not mistaken, migration
> from experimental to unstable is manual, and I'll have to ask for a new
> sponsored upload if I want this version to appear in unstable after the
> release of stretch?

That's correct.  Another upload is needed.

Kind regards

      Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de

Loading...