Bug#658204: RFS: bibtool -- tool for BibTeX database manipulation
Thanks for the look.
On 15/02/12 12:05, Benoît Knecht wrote:
Jerome Benoit wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "bibtool".
* Package name : bibtool
Version : 2.53-1
Upstream Author : Gerd Neugebauer<email@example.com>
* URL : http://www.gerd-neugebauer.de/software/TeX/BibTool/index.en.html
* License : GPL-1+
Section : tex
It builds those binary packages:
bibtool - tool for BibTeX database manipulation
I took a look at your package, here are a few comments:
- debian/preinst has a comment saying it should be removed post-etch;
now seems like it'd be a good time.
- lintian gives a few warnings:
P: bibtool source: source-contains-cvs-control-dir regex-0.12/doc/CVS
P: bibtool source: source-contains-cvs-control-dir regex-0.12/CVS
P: bibtool source: unversioned-copyright-format-uri http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5
I tried to fix the warnings emitted by lintian, but the lintian on my boxdoes not report the one above:
how can I reproduce this report.
You may want to get in touch with upstream about that.
I got in touch with the upstream maintainer a few week ago to report thisissue and to submit patches:
the upstream maintainer kindly cleaned up the source of the coming version and he integrated all the patches
except a cosmetic one. Since then, I have kept in touch with him to fix issues in the coming version.
regex shouldn't be embedded in the source.
I asked to the upstream maintainer to get ride of it: as he want to keep it:
may I follow his wish for the coming package of the coming version ? or not ?
- I'm not sure why you're closing bugs #291134 and #187255 in the
changelog; they're not fixed by this upload in particular, they're
just not considered bugs. I think you should close these bugs
manually and remove those two entries from the changelog.
I am agree: I just closed them the wrong way. I am working on it:
the two entries were removed; I am now the owner of the bugs;
I am on my way to close bugs #291134 and #187255.
The second entry ("Features have been either"...) doesn't seem very
useful; either give a brief summary of the changed features, or
remove the entry entirely. The first entry ("New upstream version")
essentially suggests that there are new or extended features, and
users should know to check the upstream changelog already.
(Actually, looking into it, there isn't even an entry for 2.53 in
The entry was removed entirely.
In the coming version, the changes are a reported in the LaTeX file `Changes.tex'
which is up-to-date. In the coming package of the coming version, `Changes.xml'
is replaced by `Changes.tex'. The `Changes.tex' LaTeX source is converted into HTLM
format, then into a TXT format readable by human; it is also composed in PDF format
as the upstream author play withfonts to comment changes.
- In debian/copyright, you list yourself as the sole copyright holder
for the files under debian/*, but you didn't do the packaging from
scratch. What about the copyright of the previous maintainers?
But I put a comment that mention them in the Comment entry: apparently isnot enough.
I have just added Copyright entries for the two previous maintainers.
- In the bibtool(1) man page, the FILES section states "none" and the
DIAGNOSTICS section "many"; I think both sections should simply be
In the SEE ALSO section, the BibTool Manual is referred to as
bibtool.tex, but this file isn't installed on Debian; instead, it
should refer to bibtool.pdf.gz installed in /usr/share/doc/bibtool.
Also, in the .TH header in bibtool.1, something more useful than
"local" (like a date for instance) should be used.
I am working on it.
- Have you forwarded your patches for inclusion upstream?
I forwarded my patches and the previous patches to the upstream maintainer:
he kindly integrated all of them except a cosmetic one --- see the second
I hope this helps.