On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 at 12:29, Andrey Rakhmatullin <
wrar@debian.org> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 10:00:10AM +0000, Arif Ali wrote:
Hi mentors,
I am working on an ITP [1] for avocado, and have an interest in this package for testing framework for sosreport, which is a package I am maintaining.
However, currently it has various lintian errors, which I am working through with upstream at the moment.
We are very close, but want to see where we stand on some of the items.
like some of the following rules are of my concern, as these may take
time
to resolve upstream, and some commands just are helper commands, and
don't
really make sense for man pages.
Helper commands that shouldn't be run by a human probably belong in
libexec, not in $PATH.
- executable-in-usr-lib
- repeated-path-segment
- no-manual-page
The key one was, if my first upload had the above 3 lintian issues, would
DDs be willing to accept the package on the premise that I can continue to
work on the issues upstream, and close these gaps?
I am already fixing with upstream 2 key items from lintian (see below),
and
have raised with upstream, and won't be uploading before these 2 items as we could have potential issues, especially with python3.13 support issues with deprecated libs.
- uses-deprecated-python-stdlib
- bash-term-in-posix-shell (already resolved upstream)
I am keen to get through the initial package in, and can work on the 3 first bullet points over time while I work with upstream, thoughts?
Sorry, what is your actual question?
--
WBR, wRAR
<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 at 12:29, Andrey Rakhmatullin <<a href="mailto:
wrar@debian.org">
wrar@debian.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_
quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 10:00:10AM +0000, Arif Ali wrote:<br>
> Hi mentors,<br>
> <br>
> I am working on an ITP [1] for avocado, and have an interest in this<br> > package for testing framework for sosreport, which is a package I am<br> > maintaining.<br>
> <br>
> However, currently it has various lintian errors, which I am working<br> > through with upstream at the moment.<br>
> <br>
> We are very close, but want to see where we stand on some of the items.<br>
> <br>
> like some of the following rules are of my concern, as these may take time<br>
> to resolve upstream, and some commands just are helper commands, and don't<br>
> really make sense for man pages.<br>
Helper commands that shouldn't be run by a human probably belong in<br> libexec, not in $PATH.<br>
> - executable-in-usr-lib<br>
> - repeated-path-segment<br>
> - no-manual-page<br>
> <br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The key one was, if my first upload had the above 3 lintian issues, would DDs be willing to accept the package on the premise that I can continue to work on the issues upstream, and close these gaps?<br></div><
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
> I am already fixing with upstream 2 key items from lintian (see below), and<br>
> have raised with upstream, and won't be uploading before these 2 items as<br>
> we could have potential issues, especially with python3.13 support issues<br>
> with deprecated libs.<br>
> <br>
> - uses-deprecated-python-stdlib<br>
> - bash-term-in-posix-shell (already resolved upstream)<br>
> <br>
> I am keen to get through the initial package in, and can work on the 3<br> > first bullet points over time while I work with upstream, thoughts?<br>
Sorry, what is your actual question?<br>
-- <br>
WBR, wRAR<br>
</blockquote></div></div>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)