Re: new cm-super and cm-super-x11
On 01.10.05 Norbert Preining (preining@logic.at) wrote:
> On Fre, 30 Sep 2005, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
Hi,
> > Things I don't like:
> > 1. Both programs didn't ever got a copyright statement
>
> True. I would ask the author, or assume they are GPL since they are
> in the .orig.tar.gz from cm-super in GPL. And Mickael once
> mentioned that he got the ok to distribute the files under GPL.
> (But maybe it was from the .pl file he was talking)
>
I've got an E-Mail form Peter stating that it is free. However I'm
not sure if this is sufficient.
> I attach the quick hack manpage I wrote.
>
Thanks.
> > 3. I didn't lintian the final package.
>
> W: pfb2t1c2pfb source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.6.1
>
> should be 3.6.1.2 (or was it 2.1)
>
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Standards-Version
Thus only the first three components of the policy version are
significant in the Standards-Version control field, and so either
these three components or the all four components may be
specified.[30]
So if he complains about out-of-date-standards-version, 3.6.2 must be
the most recent.
> W: pfb2t1c2pfb: binary-without-manpage pfb2t1c
> W: pfb2t1c2pfb: binary-without-manpage t1c2pfb
> W: pfb2t1c2pfb: copyright-lists-upstream-authors-with-dh_make-boilerplate
> W: pfb2t1c2pfb: unknown-section unknown
>
> I would suggest either tex or utils.
>
Will fix that ASAP.
> > 4. He signed using my old PGP key.
>
> -us -uc make unsigned packages.
>
I'd rather have gpg to use my new key, howevere this is a minor
issue.
> On Sam, 01 Okt 2005, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
> > 5. The binary Debian package was built on Ubuntu hoary. Needs rebuild
> > on Debian unstable.
>
> I build the package in a sid pbuilder and made it available apt
> like at
>
I'll publish new packages ASAP.
H.
--
Whip it, baby.
Whip it right.
Whip it, baby.
Whip it all night!
http://www.hilmar-preusse.de.vu/
Reply to: