Re: RFS: ITA: tex4ht -- LaTeX and TeX for Hypertext (HTML)
Kapil Hari Paranjape <kapil@imsc.res.in> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor who will help me to adopt tex4ht.
Somehow off this list I got the URL where one can download the packages
you prepared. I started looking at them, here are some remarks. Please
reply on the list.
* debian/copyright:
You include the text of LPPL 1.0, although the package has a "or later"
clause, and we are already at 1.3b. Furthermore, many of the changes from
1.2 to 1.3 where introduced because debian-legal regarded older versions
as very problematic.
I think you should include 1.3a and put a remark into the file
explaining why. Furthermore, you should contact upstream and talk with
him about a rewording of the sentence about program renaming: The
exception from the old LPPL restrictions that he grants might already be
covered by LPPL-1.3b, and he might want to use that wording or simply
drop it.
* debian/changelog:
- Since your first version was never published AFAIK, I'd suggest that
you have only one changelog entry. Otherwise, don't forget the right
options to dpkg-buildpackage (and don't forget to tell your sponsor).
- It is common practice to use the wording "New upstream version" or
similar, not "Most/more recent upstream source". Please change it - it
makes it more readable. And it seems to me that one can call it a
version - it's from the yearly "release", isn't it?. Also, the new
version is called 1.0 - is there a reason for this?
- you write:
,----
| * The following bugs were already fixed by Andrew (see README.scripts)
| I don't see why they are still open. Closes: #224807, #256834.
`----
Please do not close such bugs in the changelog - see
file:///usr/share/doc/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html#s-upload-bugfix
file:///usr/share/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-changelog-misconceptions
- you write:
,----
| * Literate source included in Debian source package. Closes: #244276
`----
This doesn't say much by itself, please refer to your README.src
- Your diff.gz contains quite some stuff that does not seem to be
Debian-specific - e.g. temp/Makefile, manpages. If you or older Debian
maintainers wrote it, was it submitted upstream? If not, where did
you get it from?
* debian/README.src
To your Point 2: For me, the interesting reason for writing a Makefile
to create the C code would not be to "verify" that it has indeed been
created from the literate programming sources. Rather I'd be
interested in being able to make changes. One could say that what you
wrote is about fulfilling the wording of the DFSG, while what I want
is to be able to use the freedom the spirit of the DFSG gives me. I
suggest you adapt the wording.
As a solution for your third point you could simply use a sed script
to replace the version date by the number found in the sources. Or you
could try to fix the creation process - I'm sure there must be a way
to do it with TeX. I might be able to help if you provide what you
wrote so far.
* debian/README.upgrading
Please rename this to NEWS, so that it will be displayed by
apt-listchanges.
* debian/postinst
Since you depend on tetex-bin, you need not check for the availability
of texhash and update-texmf.
I'd prefer to have some information in the package about which other
packages provide the /usr/bin/ht alternative.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: