Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1
* Johannes Schauer <j.schauer@email.de>, 2014-07-12, 20:32:
I don't doubt that compatibility.min.js is needed. What I questioned
is whether we ever need compatibility.js in the binary package.
Indeed. I missed the "non-" of "non-minified" in your message. The
non-minified version was indeed not used and in fact some other
non-minified file there are not used either so I just deleted them
since it's fine to only ship the minified versions in the binary
package as long as the source package has the real versions, right?
That's right.
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?)
there which I used as a start for my packaging. Now I nearly changed
everything. So I'm not sure anymore what would be appropriate as the
copyright of the packaging itself. Probably putting both our names
would be most fitting?
I don't think there's anything left from the original packaging. You can
put only your name with clear conscience. :-)
The machine-readable debian/copyright file specification advices
against using “MIT” as the short license name.
I'm currently reading
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ and
you probably mean the part where it says "There are many versions of
the MIT license. Please use Expat instead, when it matches."?
That's what I meant, yes.
On the other hand it uses MIT as the short name in the section "Example
4. Complex".
How odd…
Short license name for GPL version 3 or a later version is “GPL-3+”,
not “GPL-3”.
I do not think the package is GPL-3+. Have a look at README.md where it
says the license is GPL-3 (without a "or later"). Or do you see it
different anywhere else?
LICENSE says “or (at your option) any later version”. Admittedly the
latter also says “is licensed under GPLv3”…
For extra confusion, upstream's d/copyright says “License: GPL-2 or GPL-3”, but
in both license paragraphs they write “or (at your option) any later version”.
I could clarify with upstream.
Please do. :-)
It would be nice if the TMPDIR environment variable was honoured.
Good catch! How did you find that?
By reading the source. :-)
I fixed that and will forward the patch to upstream.
There are still other accesses to /tmp without honoring TMPDIR but I
cannot find the piece of code that makes these. It's just calling stat
on /tmp, creating an empty file with random name and then deleting it
without writing into it. Maybe one of the other libraries does it?
Yup. libfontforge calls tmpfile(3), which doesn't honour TMPDIR. :-(
In the build log I see:
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: package could avoid a useless dependency if debian/pdf2htmlex/usr/bin/pdf2htmlEX was not linked against libgunicode.so.3 (it uses none of the library's symbols)
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: package could avoid a useless dependency if debian/pdf2htmlex/usr/bin/pdf2htmlEX was not linked against libpython2.7.so.1.0 (it uses none of the library's symbols)
It would be nice to get rid of these warnings.
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.
I do not think that not linking against libgunicode.so.3 would avoid a
useless dependency because libgunicode.so.3 is shipped by the
libfontforge1 package and pdf2htmlEX links against libfontforge.so.1
and libgutils.so.1 which are both from the libfontforge1 package.
Hmm, yes, in this case the warning is only about ELF dependency, not
about Debian package dependency.
--
Jakub Wilk
Reply to: