From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 09:20:11 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 0/9] A checkpackage script that verifies a package coding style In-Reply-To: <58eeea7d15ad_5ae111447a8319e8@ultri3.mail> References: <20170412094909.66ea1ada@free-electrons.com> <58eeea7d15ad_5ae111447a8319e8@ultri3.mail> Message-ID: <20170413092011.7a22ace2@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 00:03:25 -0300, Ricardo Martincoski wrote: > > Looks good to me. I'm wondering what is best between checkpackage and > > check-packagelib for the folder, but I don't have a strong opinion here. > > Maybe checkpackagelib? Looks good to me. > Indeed a minor detail. > +1 on this, either the PEP 8 recommendation [2] or the pep8 tool [3]. > > My *personal* reasoning for using both is: > "Some people that wrote much more Python code than me already thought and > discussed about this to came up with this recommendation" > "I am lazy so I use the tool so I don't need to read the recommendation too > often" > > > In the long run, it would be good to have opinions from others. > How do you prefer handling this? > A) you guys discuss on IRC; > B) new thread on the mailing list; > C) add topic to next dev meeting; A new thread on the mailing list would be fine. I think the most active Python-ist folks are Samuel Martin, Maxime Hadjinlian and Thomas De Schampheleire. Make sure to include them in the discussion. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com