Re: Orthanc 0.6.2 - Review needed for "Orthanc Client"
Hi Sebastien,
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 03:12:48PM +0200, Sebastien Jodogne wrote:
> Anyway, before each release, I apply automated integration tests
> that challenge Orthanc with a set of DICOM images. So, if the Web
> interface is reachable, Orthanc should be correctly working.
+1
> >Well, "required" is a hard category. It is not really required to
> >regard these both issues, but sooner or later we should deal with this.
> >Just tell me, whether you want to have the package super clean or
> >whether I should upload for the moment and we leave this for some
> >later point in time.
>
> Because this release fixes the serious #724947 issue and because the
> other points can be delayed, I would indeed favor the upload of the
> package as such.
I think this is the correct decision and thus uploaded just now.
> I have just created a Trello card to track the aforementioned
> problems [1].
+1
> Using another source package for jQuery-related stuff
> will oblige me to refactor large parts of the upstream package.
Yes. This is most probably the hardest item of the todo list. I just
tried to mention it right now to let you keeping this in mind when
working on your upstream code. May be it might influence your future
development. BTW, this is the great advantage if upstream is also
working on the Debian package - you learn about potential problems and
are interested yourself to regard them upstream.
> Just a last question: Should I pay attention to the
> "possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration" lintian
> warning [2]?
I always regard it in my packages and this is the most simple item on
your todo list. You will find a lot of examples in SVN (just seek via
`find <svndir> -name "*doc-base*"`) so creating the docbase file should
be a matter of less than 5 minutes for you.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: