Re: RFS: python-djvu & ocrodjvu
* Daniel Stender <daniel@danielstender.com>, 2011-05-29, 20:35:
Jakub would like to get rid of the maintenance of these packets, has
anybody a couple of minutes
Just FYI, it usually takes more than "a couple of minutes" to review a
package... ;)
and would be so nice to review my latest packings of python-djvulibre
(0.3.3-1)
debian/changelog
================
* Most changes to debian/control are undocumented[0].
* "Added patch python-djvulibre-55cfd0f79af0.diff", "Added patch
python-djvulibre-bd925e3ca460.diff" - this is not very helpful for a
casual reader. Please explain (in the changelog) what are these
patches about.
* What do you mean by "improved tests" and "expanded copyrights"?
debian/patches/*
================
Last-Update should use the ISO date format YYYY-MM-DD.
debian/control
==============
Lintian complains:
I: python-djvu: extended-description-is-probably-too-short
I: python-djvu: conflicts-with-version python-djvulibre (<< 0.1.12)
Other stuff
===========
djvu/dllpath.py could be excluded from the binary package, it's not
useful on Debian systems.
and ocrodjvu (0.7.1-1)
debian/changelog
================
* The latest upstream release is 0.7.2.
* #598156, #600539 and #611460 are archived. If you want them to be
re-close, you need to unarchive them first.
* "Bumped djvulibre-bin dependencies to 3.5.21" - why?[1] IIRC the
current (>= 3.5.20-5~) should be sufficient to Debian. And, since
unstable has already a newer version, the version constraint could be
dropped altogether.
* "Added build-deps on python-imaging and locales-all" - why?[1]
debian/control
==============
* I'd love you didn't build depend on locales-all and generated the
required locales at build time.
* ">= <something>~" only makes sense if there is/was a package with
version <something> in the archive. Otherwise, just use ">=
<something>".
* Current standards version is 3.9.2.
... both packets are building fine.
Just for the reference, the latter cannot be built against
python-djvulibre from sid, as it doesn't support Python 2.7 yet.
[0] I guess the they might be only some cosmetic changes, but I didn't
bother to check.
[1] Well, *I* might know why, but not a casual reader.
--
Jakub Wilk
Reply to: