Bug#693330: RFS: mathjax/2.1+20121028-1 mathjax-docs/2.1+20121030-1
Hi Andrew,
First of all, I want to mention that I've received a mail from one of
MathJax developers where he was asking me to split the fonts package
out. I will do that, so please don't upload mathjax now. The
discussion is available at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/12/.
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio <asb@debian.org> wrote:
> My personal understanding is that when not listed in the
> specification, the SPDX identifier should be used. Though that doesn't
> seem clear in the text at all. May I'll bring this up on
> debian-policy. As another data point, the only machine-readable
> debian/copyright parser I know warns on your language but not OFL-1.1
Fixed in git.
>>> But all that's a bit nit-picky. Now lets look at the doc package:
>
>>> 3) You have no debian/watch file.
>>
>> The docs repository doesn't have any tags at all (I guess it's
>> supposed to be a "rolling" branch), so no watch file for now.
>
> While a 2.1 release doesn't seem to exisit, older tags are availiable
> for download at:
>
> https://github.com/mathjax/mathjax-docs/tags
The repository was forked from mathjax/MathJax, so these are old tags
for MJ itself (not the docs).
> Either way, I like to follow the advise offered by the lintian tag:
>
> N: If the package is not maintained upstream or if upstream uses a
> N: distribution mechanism that cannot be meaningfully monitored by uscan
> N: and the Debian External Health Status project, please consider adding a
> N: debian/watch file containing only comments documenting the situation.
>
> If there isn't a working debian/watch, I'd also like to see a
> get-orig-source target in debian/rules.
Which way would you prefer:
- getting the tarball from github directly;
- cloning the git repo and then building the archive manually?
Both are a bit tricky, and neither provides an easy way to get the
upstream version (which should be A.B+YYYYMMDD). Will it be OK if that
target just downloads the .tar.gz from github and doesn't rename it?
--
Dmitry Shachnev
Reply to: