Kapil Hari Paranjape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I am looking for a sponsor who will help me to adopt tex4ht.
Somehow off this list I got the URL where one can download the packages you prepared. I started looking at them, here are some remarks. Please reply on the list. * debian/copyright: You include the text of LPPL 1.0, although the package has a "or later" clause, and we are already at 1.3b. Furthermore, many of the changes from 1.2 to 1.3 where introduced because debian-legal regarded older versions as very problematic. I think you should include 1.3a and put a remark into the file explaining why. Furthermore, you should contact upstream and talk with him about a rewording of the sentence about program renaming: The exception from the old LPPL restrictions that he grants might already be covered by LPPL-1.3b, and he might want to use that wording or simply drop it. * debian/changelog: - Since your first version was never published AFAIK, I'd suggest that you have only one changelog entry. Otherwise, don't forget the right options to dpkg-buildpackage (and don't forget to tell your sponsor). - It is common practice to use the wording "New upstream version" or similar, not "Most/more recent upstream source". Please change it - it makes it more readable. And it seems to me that one can call it a version - it's from the yearly "release", isn't it?. Also, the new version is called 1.0 - is there a reason for this? - you write: ,---- | * The following bugs were already fixed by Andrew (see README.scripts) | I don't see why they are still open. Closes: #224807, #256834. `---- Please do not close such bugs in the changelog - see file:///usr/share/doc/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html#s-upload-bugfix file:///usr/share/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-changelog-misconceptions - you write: ,---- | * Literate source included in Debian source package. Closes: #244276 `---- This doesn't say much by itself, please refer to your README.src - Your diff.gz contains quite some stuff that does not seem to be Debian-specific - e.g. temp/Makefile, manpages. If you or older Debian maintainers wrote it, was it submitted upstream? If not, where did you get it from? * debian/README.src To your Point 2: For me, the interesting reason for writing a Makefile to create the C code would not be to "verify" that it has indeed been created from the literate programming sources. Rather I'd be interested in being able to make changes. One could say that what you wrote is about fulfilling the wording of the DFSG, while what I want is to be able to use the freedom the spirit of the DFSG gives me. I suggest you adapt the wording. As a solution for your third point you could simply use a sed script to replace the version date by the number found in the sources. Or you could try to fix the creation process - I'm sure there must be a way to do it with TeX. I might be able to help if you provide what you wrote so far. * debian/README.upgrading Please rename this to NEWS, so that it will be displayed by apt-listchanges. * debian/postinst Since you depend on tetex-bin, you need not check for the availability of texhash and update-texmf. I'd prefer to have some information in the package about which other packages provide the /usr/bin/ht alternative. Regards, Frank -- Frank K�ster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Z�rich Debian Developer
