Re: RFS: acetoneiso
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Nick Andrik schrieb:
> 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?
Yes this would be valid and a good choice.
>
>>>> lintian:
>>>> 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?
It should be an offical manpage.
>
>>>> 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
> typos.
Ok that's fine as long as upstream fixes them. I wouldn't reject the
package just because of those typos.
- --
/*
Mit freundlichem Gruß / With kind regards,
Patrick Matthäi
GNU/Linux Debian Developer
E-Mail: pmatthaei@debian.org
patrick@linux-dev.org
Comment:
Always if we think we are right,
we were maybe wrong.
*/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAktOAxkACgkQ2XA5inpabMfT5ACfWRk6muazzrcbcDcT/udncs3Y
fAsAni3bYPTEsnQcSyQPuF1b0X8JoxEP
=+859
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: