Bug#869692: RFS: cyclograph/1.9.0-1
> Patch headers should be in the DEP-3 format (lintian tells that).
Now I have to ask for the option needed for lintian to tell that.
I run lintian --display-info and it is not reporting anything about the patches.
The lintian report at https://mentors.debian.net/package/cyclograph
isn't showing anything suspicious either.
How can I get that kind of level out of lintian?
> Instead of "Removed pycompat file because lintinan says it is obsolete"
> you should write "Removed obsolete debian/pycompat".
Ok
> doc/manual.html says it's autogenerated from a LyX source yet the source
> and a way to regenerate it from that source are not included. This is a
> DFSG violation.
It's not auto-generated, but generated. I use LyX as my editor, it saves
the file in an internal format, and I export it to html.
I don't see any violation to DFSG §2, which is the closes to the subject.
I'm sure may other packages have some kind of xml in their sources but
the editor is not listed in the B-D.
> The same for cyclograph/qt/cyclograph_rc.py which is pyrcc5-generated.
I agree more on this, because the resource file is a kind of binary /
obfuscated code. It contains only artworks and the same html files used
by cyclograph-gtk3. If the generation process has to be done in debian
I don't think a new upstream release can be avoided, because the file
needed to build the resource file is not distributed in the tar.
We'll try to have the package working with no resource file installed at all,
but would it be acceptable to have it in the source package or a repack
would be needed?
> The GUIs still have a "Check online" checkbox which is even on by default
> even if it has no effect, it should be hidden.
Ok, thanks for the care you are giving to this package.
To fix this a patch or a new upstream release is required. Are both options
acceptable?
--
Federico
Reply to: