Bug#658204: RFS: bibtool -- tool for BibTeX database manipulation

[Jerome BENOIT <g6299304p@rezozer.net>]

Hello:

I have just upload a revisited version of my package that addresses
the below points when applicable.

Please find below quick answers to the points.

On 15/02/12 12:05, Benoît Knecht wrote:
> Hi Jerome,
>
> Jerome Benoit wrote:
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "bibtool".
> >
> >   * Package name    : bibtool
> >     Version         : 2.53-1
> >     Upstream Author : Gerd Neugebauer<gene@gerd-neugebauer.de>
> >   * URL             : http://www.gerd-neugebauer.de/software/TeX/BibTool/index.en.html
> >   * License         : GPL-1+
> >     Section         : tex
> >
> > It builds those binary packages:
> >
> > bibtool    - tool for BibTeX database manipulation
>
> I took a look at your package, here are a few comments:
>
>    - debian/preinst has a comment saying it should be removed post-etch;
>      now seems like it'd be a good time.

It was wiped out.


>    - lintian gives a few warnings:
>
>        P: bibtool source: source-contains-cvs-control-dir regex-0.12/doc/CVS
>        P: bibtool source: source-contains-cvs-control-dir regex-0.12/CVS
>        P: bibtool source: unversioned-copyright-format-uri http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5

Using the relevant lintian options I could observed those warnings, and I fixed them
(thanks to the upstream maintainer).

>      You may want to get in touch with upstream about that. Also, ideally
>      regex shouldn't be embedded in the source.

I am considering to build a Debian Source to get ride of more useless material
from a Debian perspective.

>    - I'm not sure why you're closing bugs #291134 and #187255 in the
>      changelog; they're not fixed by this upload in particular, they're
>      just not considered bugs. I think you should close these bugs
>      manually and remove those two entries from the changelog.

Those bugs were closed are non bugs.

>      The second entry ("Features have been either"...) doesn't seem very
>      useful; either give a brief summary of the changed features, or
>      remove the entry entirely. The first entry ("New upstream version")
>      essentially suggests that there are new or extended features, and
>      users should know to check the upstream changelog already.

I am agree: I clean up this part.

>      (Actually, looking into it, there isn't even an entry for 2.53 in
>      Changes.xml.)
>
>    - In debian/copyright, you list yourself as the sole copyright holder
>      for the files under debian/*, but you didn't do the packaging from
>      scratch. What about the copyright of the previous maintainers?

fixed !

>    - In the bibtool(1) man page, the FILES section states "none" and the
>      DIAGNOSTICS section "many"; I think both sections should simply be
>      removed.
>
>      In the SEE ALSO section, the BibTool Manual is referred to as
>      bibtool.tex, but this file isn't installed on Debian; instead, it
>      should refer to bibtool.pdf.gz installed in /usr/share/doc/bibtool.
>
>      Also, in the .TH header in bibtool.1, something more useful than
>      "local" (like a date for instance) should be used.

I took the opportunity to update the bibtool.1 man page and to submit it to
the upstream maintainer who kindly integrated it modulo minor changes.

>    - Have you forwarded your patches for inclusion upstream?

I got in touch with the upstream maintainer a few week ago to report issues and to submit patches:
the upstream maintainer kindly cleaned up the source of the coming version and he integrated all the patches
except a cosmetic one. Since then, I have kept in touch with him to fix more issues in the coming version.

> I hope this helps.

It helped.

> Cheers,

Thanks,
Jerome