Bug#687563: RFS: opengrm-ngram/1.0.3-1 [ITP] -- opengrm n-gram library
- To: 687563@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Bug#687563: RFS: opengrm-ngram/1.0.3-1 [ITP] -- opengrm n-gram library
- From: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 21:20:10 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20130111202010.GA7753@jwilk.net>
- Mail-followup-to: 687563@bugs.debian.org
- Reply-to: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>, 687563@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <50E713EE.2010707@gmail.com>
- References: <5052321C.9080902@gmail.com> <20121231210038.GA5588@jwilk.net> <50E34CFA.4080702@gmail.com> <20130102103356.GA3321@jwilk.net> <50E41792.9080405@gmail.com> <20130102135210.GA542@jwilk.net> <50E4C0CE.2080509@gmail.com> <20130103155531.GA6408@jwilk.net> <50E713EE.2010707@gmail.com>
* Giulio Paci <giuliopaci@gmail.com>, 2013-01-04, 18:39:
As far as I can see, the test scripts create temporary files in an
insecure way.
The scripts do not interfere each other. Instead of patching them, I
defined TMPDIR to tmpdata, so that the temporary files are created in
the package build directory.
That's okay for us, but please forward the bug upstream; they should fix
it too.
The package needs the OpenFST far extensions, which were not enabled in
Debian until recently. It would be nice to make the libfst-dev
build-dependency versioned.
Would it be possible to exclude binary files from the being analysed by
licensecheck?
Is there a reason you explicitly enable building static libraries?
src/include/ngram/ngram.h doesn't look like valid C++ to me...
Typo in src/bin/ngraminfo.cc: modesl -> models.
--
Jakub Wilk
Reply to: