Hi, thanks reply! I revise new package, please see this url:
http://www.gfd-dennou.org/member/uwabami/software/tmp/ - dvipsk-ja_5.98+p1.7b-1.debian.tar.gz - dvipsk-ja_5.98+p1.7b-1.dsc - dvipsk-ja_5.98+p1.7b-1_amd64.build - dvipsk-ja_5.98+p1.7b-1_amd64.changes - dvipsk-ja_5.98+p1.7b-1_amd64.deb - dvipsk-ja_5.98+p1.7b.orig-jpatch.tar.gz - dvipsk-ja_5.98+p1.7b.orig.tar.xz At Wed, 12 May 2010 20:42:20 +0900, Hideki Yamane <[email protected]> wrote: > > - Debian revision is not correct, it should be 5.98+jp1.7b-0.1. > (or, if you can help to maintain it, consider to add yourself to Uploaders > and use revision as -1 :) Change version 5.98+p1.7b-1 and add Uploaders(p1.7b is upstream patch version). But may I do whithout any permission? If wrong, I'll revise it. > - Your update would solve #562440 with TeXLive2009 based one, so please > describe it in changelog. Added. > - Don't add debian/source.lintian-overrides without appropriate reason. > - README.jpatch, ChangeLog.jpatch and README-tl.txt are not debian specific > files, right? You would be better to move those files to appropriate > directory. I create stipped dvipsk soruce from texlive-bin_2009, and change source format using multiple upstream sources. This package is lintian clean now. > - You can improve debian/dirs more Ok. remove duplicate entry. > - Please add descriptions for each patch, especially its origin (URIs). > It is useful to track changes with upstream. Ok. I add description in not debian-specific patches. > - Please describe more with your debian/control changes. Add discriptions > - Does it work well? if so, please describe the steps to check it. > With testcase is better. Hmm. It's bit difficult because of ghostscript can't handling japanese PostScript now(I don't have any idea...Hmm...) > >> I think it's better to join texlive because it would also solve > >> Bug#562440 "dvipsk-ja: FTBFS: dpkg-shlibdeps: error: couldn't find > >> library libkpathsea.so.4 needed by debian/dvipsk-ja/usr/bin/dvips > >> (ELF format: 'elf64-x86-64'; RPATH: '')". > > > >I don't think so. AFAK this patch is l10n support, not i18n, so I > >hesitate to join texlive-bin package... > > You don't agree with merge it to TeXLive2009 packages, not for > Bug#562440 issue, right? Yes. > Generally, we should avoid to upload different source packages with > same origin but some exceptions are there (i.e. xpdf and > xpdf-{c,j,k} packages). We should track and deal with security fix > in TeXLive if we wouldn't merged to TeXLive source > package. However, it's a kind of balance between costs and profit. I think so. I don't know "ptexlive" activity in Debian, so I hesitate... Now, I create dvipsk source stripped upstream texlive-bin_2009 source. --- Youhei SASAKI <[email protected]> <[email protected]> GPG fingerprint: 4096/RSA: 66A4 EA70 4FE2 4055 8D6A C2E6 9394 F354 891D 7E07 1024/DSA: 8BF1 ABFE 00D2 526D 6822 2AC6 13E0 381D AEE9 95F4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
