[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1



Hi again,

Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-13 20:24:00)
> >>Who is the copyright holder for the files in debian/? According to the
> >>copyright file it's WANG Lu. :-P
> >Indeed it was. If you look at the upstream repository you'll see a 
> >Debian directory
> 
> Oops, I missed it.
> (Wouldn't it make sense to remove it from .orig.tar?)

uscan does this automatically when repacking upstream tarballs.

> I don't think there's anything left from the original packaging. You can put
> only your name with clear conscience. :-)

well, now you helped me so much I could start putting your name in ;)

> >I could clarify with upstream.
> 
> Please do. :-)

I did ask upstream at https://github.com/coolwanglu/pdf2htmlEX/issues/387

> >Removing useless linking against libpython2.7.so.1.0 was easily fixed by not
> >build depending on python-dev.
> 
> Hmm, that doesn't sound right. It means that a user building in a 
> non-minimal environment can get a package with or without 
> libpython2.7-dev in Depends, depending on which packages they had 
> installed. I think I prefer to live with the dpkg-shlibdeps warnings, 
> than to have this sort of non-determinism.

Right. So how about a Build-Conflict with the appropriate binary package? I
don't want to uselessly increase the amount of dependencies of the resulting
binary package (even though libpython is probably present on most systems).

Though on the other hand it seems I managed to patch the build system such that
it will not use libpython anymore (see patch "no-libpython").

What is your opinion about the tarball repacking and the Files-Excluded in
debian/copyright? I'm not even a DD so if you tell me that the current way I do
it is wrong than of course I'll change it and use a repack script instead :)

cheers, josch


Reply to: