Re: [ITP] python-xlrd

On 23/04/2026 23:16, Brian Inglis via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> On 2026-04-23 08:06, Hamish McIntyre-Bhatty via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>> On 20/04/2026 21:37, Brian Inglis via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>> On 2026-04-20 08:50, Hamish McIntyre-Bhatty via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>>> xlrd (https://pypi.org/project/xlrd/) is an optional dependency of 
>>>> wxPython, which I maintain, and as such I'd like to package it for 
>>>> Cygwin.
>>>> The cygport file for this package is at: 
>>>> https://gitlab.com/hamishmb/ cygwin- python-xlrd
>>>> Please note that the -common package doesn't contain any python3.9 
>>>> or python3.12-specific files, just some documentation and a script 
>>>> that can run on either Python version.
>>>> xlrd is in Debian: https://packages.debian.org/trixie/python3-xlrd
>>> If you quote the majority package distros repology page (to which we 
>>> provide updates from calm and/or deploy processes):
>>>      https://repology.org/project/python%3Axlrd/information
>>> packages qualify if they have a bunch of independent distro 
>>> appearances;
>
>> My bad, I thought only one distro appearance was needed. I'll 
>> remember repology for the next one (there's no end in sight for now, 
>> unfortunately!)
>
> I use "bunch" as a technical term for more than one and it depends; 
> typically all the *BSD, Debian/Ubuntu/..., CentOS/Fedora/..., *SuSE 
> and their other derivatives are considered to be the same, so if a 
> package appears under only one group, that should be mentioned.
Sounds reasonable.
>
>>> add a Fedora Main spec for policy review:
>>>
>>> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-xlrd/blob/main/f/python-xlrd.spec 
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by this.
>
> If you link to it, we can see if there are any potentially 
> questionable sub-packages, components, or build options that for any 
> reason we may need to discuss skipping or using, flagged by Fedora: 
> some packages may have some components, files, or dependencies on 
> some, under non-free licenses, other encumbrance, potential security 
> risks, or contain politically incorrect content.
> [For example, fortune defaults to only politically correct and no 
> potentially offensive quotes, and all offensive cookie files installed 
> are rot13 encoded. Offensive here ranges from possibly considered any 
> flavour of tasteless or off-colour by any, to what most in some places 
> would consider obscene comments, such as all limericks and various 
> other content. Instructions are given for deletion of some or all 
> potentially offensive content by admins.]
Okay also sounds reasonable, thanks for letting me know.
>
>
>>> you should feel confident to attach a copy of the cygport, and 
>>> preferably a link to a CI playground repo build job (not any package 
>>> repo playground branch as it does not yet exist for this package):
>>>      https://cygwin.com/cgit/cygwin-packages/playground/
>
>> Okay, no problem, cygport file attached. I tried to push to a new 
>> branch on the playground repo, but got a Permission denied 
>> (publickey) error, so I don't think I have the privileges needed to 
>> do that at the moment.
>
> As far as I know, should work for all maintainers; see reply to other 
> thread. 

This doesn't work for me, see my response in the other thread (sending 
imminently).

Best,

Hamish