Re: RFS: libharu

[Johan Van de Wauw <johan.vandewauw@gmail.com>]

Dear Paul,

Thanks for your (extensive!) review. Most of your comments were clear,
but still a few questions here:

On May 16, 5:50 am, Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> wrote:

> The libhpdf-dev package description should have more detail than the
> libhpdf-2.1.0 description since the latter will always be
> automatically installed and libhpdf-dev will be installed from
> build-depends and by people wanting to develop apps using the library.

Makes sense. So is it ok to move the (updated) long description to the
-dev package and use only a short description for libhpdf?
I was randomly searching other libraries, and could not really find
examples, if one jumps to your mind, let me know.

>
> The last release was a long time ago and the git repository has recent
> commits, you might want to ask them when the next release will be.

It is indeed pending (but has been for quite some time). Do you think
it is better to concentrate on making a package (for
mentors/experimental) from a git snapshot (eventually contributing
some changes upstream) or to concentrate on a package of 2.1.0 (with
backported patches) which might still be included in squeeze?

>
> The upstream tarball contains .res files, which are compiled versions
> of the .rc files. I'd suggest that they should only ship source code
> in their source tarballs. Same comment applies to the prebuilt-PDFs
> from the demos.
>
> Much of the code is under a different license to the one quoted in
> debian/copyright.
>
/me hits himself: ok, I thought I checked every dir, but it seems I
forgot the 'demo' dir. It seems I will definitely have to remove some
stuff there.

In the mean time since I have to repack, I could also remove the *.rc
files (actually the whole win32 directory), which are only used in the
windows builds. Or is it better to leave them in there?