Hello Jörg, On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 05:19:20PM +0200, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote: > [...] > dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libo/libonig/libonig_6.9.10-1.dsc The package built fine and generally looks fine, too, so thanks already for your continued contribution. I have some nitpicks and some suggestions, though, so please bear with me: > libonig (6.9.10-1) unstable; urgency=medium > . > * New upstream release (Closes: #1097239). > - Refresh symbols file. A pet peeve of mine: for me this suggests that #1097239 was asking for the new upstream release to be packaged, so I prefer something along the following instead (wording taken from upstream's HISTORY file): > * New upstream release. > - Fixes build failure with GCC 15 (C23) (Closes: #1097239). > - Refresh symbols file accordingly. but YMMV. > [...] > * debian/copyright: > - Add year 2025 to myself. > - Rewrite to make lrc happy. It seems upstream's copyright now lists "Copyright (c) 2002-2024 K.Kosako", so this ought to be reflected here as well. My lintian also points out the following: W: libonig-dev: old-fsf-address-in-copyright-file N: N: The /usr/share/doc/*pkg*/copyright file refers to the old postal address N: of the Free Software Foundation (FSF). You should refer to N: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/ instead of a physical address, for example: N: N: You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License N: along with this program. If not, see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/. N: N: Visibility: warning N: Show-Always: no N: Check: debian/copyright N: N: W: libonig5: old-fsf-address-in-copyright-file Lintian also points out this: I: libonig source: patch-not-forwarded-upstream [debian/patches/0100-source_typos.patch] but this is moot as that patch is not active or even required anymore since 6.9.8-1, so I guess it should best just be removed. For reference, UDD also lists these lintian findings here: <https://udd.debian.org/lintian/?packages=libonig&format=html<_error=on<_warning=on<_information=on&lintian_tag=#all> (and also the vcs-field-uses-insecure-uri which you have already fixed) Then there is a multi-arch hint "libonig-dev could be marked Multi-Arch: same" as listed on <https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libonig>. Do you agree with this hint? Now, given that libonig has seen quite some success, e.g. with it being a dependency of the popular "jq" tool, wouldn't it be beneficial to add some autopkgtests, maybe based on upstream's samples? Do you have any plans on this? And lastly, concerning the future of libonig: as per <https://github.com/kkos/oniguruma> that repo was archived by the owner on Apr 24, 2025. It is now read-only. And the README further points out "This project ended on April 24, 2025." Do you have further insights into this, e.g. will any forks continue the work, or do you have any other plans for the future? Cheers, Flo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature