-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Nick Andrik schrieb: > O/H Patrick Matthäi έγραψε: >> Normaly we do not need it at all - for free Debian packages - because >> they compile native on every distribution. >> So here is a new issue with this package: >> acetoneiso depends on a not packaged piece of software in Debian, which >> is also not free. >> >> This means: >> 1) this reverse dependencie first have to be packaged (and from your >> text it has to enter non-free) >> 2) acetoneiso depends on a piece of non-free software, but its >> sourcecode is free, so acetoneiso has to be moved from main to contrib > > Poweriso is used only to support DAA images. Could the option of > dropping official support for poweriso be a valid one? The users can > always install it manually if they want but including it officially > could wait for now. What do you think?
Yes this would be valid and a good choice. > >>>> lintian: >>>> Those have to be fixed before I upload it: >>>> I: acetoneiso: copyright-with-old-dh-make-debian-copyright >>>> I: acetoneiso: description-synopsis-might-not-be-phrased-properly >>>> W: acetoneiso: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/acetoneiso >>> The upstream authors do not provide a manpage. Is this warning so >>> serious so that I will have to write one myself or can it be ignored >>> for now? >> It is not serious as in "release critical", but it is a bug. If upstream >> does not provide a manpage, please write it on your own and push >> upstream to adopt it. > > OK, I have contacted the upstream authors about this. They provide html > manual, is this enough or should I write an official man page? It should be an offical manpage. > >>>> Also there are many spelling errors in the upstream source, reported by >>>> lintian. You may patch them and send it to upstream (if they are no >>>> false positives): >>> I added a patch which corrects many of the spelling mistakes except >>> for the .qm files which are translation files for QT programs and the >>> final executable uses directly them. The problem is that they are in >>> binary format and I cannot patch them. Do you have any suggestion on >>> how to handle this? In any case I will contact the authors to ask them >>> to update them upstream. >> >> Send it to upstream. >> I think you tried to edit the compiled ones? > > I have managed to include the changes in the patch also for the binary > files. In any case I have contacted the upstream authors to correct the > typos. Ok that's fine as long as upstream fixes them. I wouldn't reject the package just because of those typos. - -- /* Mit freundlichem Gruß / With kind regards, Patrick Matthäi GNU/Linux Debian Developer E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected] Comment: Always if we think we are right, we were maybe wrong. */ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAktOAxkACgkQ2XA5inpabMfT5ACfWRk6muazzrcbcDcT/udncs3Y fAsAni3bYPTEsnQcSyQPuF1b0X8JoxEP =+859 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
