Re: RFS: acetoneiso
O/H Patrick Matthäi έγραψε:
> Normaly we do not need it at all - for free Debian packages - because
> they compile native on every distribution.
> So here is a new issue with this package:
> acetoneiso depends on a not packaged piece of software in Debian, which
> is also not free.
> This means:
> 1) this reverse dependencie first have to be packaged (and from your
> text it has to enter non-free)
> 2) acetoneiso depends on a piece of non-free software, but its
> sourcecode is free, so acetoneiso has to be moved from main to contrib
Poweriso is used only to support DAA images. Could the option of
dropping official support for poweriso be a valid one? The users can
always install it manually if they want but including it officially
could wait for now. What do you think?
>>> Those have to be fixed before I upload it:
>>> I: acetoneiso: copyright-with-old-dh-make-debian-copyright
>>> I: acetoneiso: description-synopsis-might-not-be-phrased-properly
>>> W: acetoneiso: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/acetoneiso
>> The upstream authors do not provide a manpage. Is this warning so
>> serious so that I will have to write one myself or can it be ignored
>> for now?
> It is not serious as in "release critical", but it is a bug. If upstream
> does not provide a manpage, please write it on your own and push
> upstream to adopt it.
OK, I have contacted the upstream authors about this. They provide html
manual, is this enough or should I write an official man page?
>>> Also there are many spelling errors in the upstream source, reported by
>>> lintian. You may patch them and send it to upstream (if they are no
>>> false positives):
>> I added a patch which corrects many of the spelling mistakes except
>> for the .qm files which are translation files for QT programs and the
>> final executable uses directly them. The problem is that they are in
>> binary format and I cannot patch them. Do you have any suggestion on
>> how to handle this? In any case I will contact the authors to ask them
>> to update them upstream.
> Send it to upstream.
> I think you tried to edit the compiled ones?
I have managed to include the changes in the patch also for the binary
files. In any case I have contacted the upstream authors to correct the