Re: RFS: ocropus (updated package, 2nd try)
Hi Dne Wed, 2 Dec 2009 21:51:52 +0100 Jakub Wilk uba...@users.sf.net napsal(a): * Michal Čihař ni...@debian.org, 2009-11-30, 13:39: Possibly this exact version is not needed. I was just following this part of /usr/share/doc/autotools-dev/README.Debian.gz: For automake 1.6 and above, and newest autoconf: [...] - Call the automake suite using *versioned* names (automake-1.9, etc), OR use autoreconf, but set the environment variables accordingly to the versioned names. Otherwise, you may get a higher version than what you expected. If you know your Makefile.am files are very well behaved, and will not break with a newer automake, versioned names are optional. Upstream is apparently using 1.9.6 so I thought it was the safest choice to hardcode automake-1.9. Okay, I usually assume the Makefile.am is not that broken so it won't work in next version and use current automake. If you insist, I can convert the package to use current automake. I really do not insist in this, rather I currently don't have time to look at the package deeper. -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: ocropus (updated package, 2nd try)
* Michal Čihař ni...@debian.org, 2009-11-30, 13:39: Possibly this exact version is not needed. I was just following this part of /usr/share/doc/autotools-dev/README.Debian.gz: For automake 1.6 and above, and newest autoconf: [...] - Call the automake suite using *versioned* names (automake-1.9, etc), OR use autoreconf, but set the environment variables accordingly to the versioned names. Otherwise, you may get a higher version than what you expected. If you know your Makefile.am files are very well behaved, and will not break with a newer automake, versioned names are optional. Upstream is apparently using 1.9.6 so I thought it was the safest choice to hardcode automake-1.9. Okay, I usually assume the Makefile.am is not that broken so it won't work in next version and use current automake. If you insist, I can convert the package to use current automake. -- Jakub Wilk signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: ocropus (updated package, 2nd try)
Hi Dne Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:44:24 +0100 Jakub Wilk uba...@users.sf.net napsal(a): I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.3.1-1 of package ocropus, which I intend to co-maintain with Jeffrey Ratcliffe. It builds these binary packages: ocropus - document analysis and OCR system ocropus-data - document analysis and OCR system --- data files The package appears to be lintian clean (except possible misspelling in binaries, which I am not going to address in this release). The upload would fix these bugs: 518772, 551167, 551174 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/ocropus/ocropus_0.3.1-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. What is the reason for running autoreconf in clean? Why you don't package latest upstream version? It's already several months old. Also does Jeffrey know about this upload? -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: ocropus (updated package, 2nd try)
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 09:47:36AM +0100, Michal Čihař wrote: Why you don't package latest upstream version? It's already several months old. The latest version has unpackaged new dependencies and it would be good to get at least 0.3 uploaded before starting work on 0.4.3. Also does Jeffrey know about this upload? Yes. I don't have a great deal of free time ATM, and Jakub was kind enough to offer to help. Regards Jeff signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: ocropus (updated package, 2nd try)
* Michal Čihař ni...@debian.org, 2009-11-30, 09:47: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/ocropus/ocropus_0.3.1-1.dsc What is the reason for running autoreconf in clean? Upstream build system is horribly broken. That was the easiest way to sanitize it. (The autoreconf line may look purposeless, but with it the package FTBFS.) -- Jakub Wilk signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: ocropus (updated package, 2nd try)
Dne Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:48:17 +0100 Jakub Wilk uba...@users.sf.net napsal(a): * Michal Čihař ni...@debian.org, 2009-11-30, 09:47: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/ocropus/ocropus_0.3.1-1.dsc What is the reason for running autoreconf in clean? Upstream build system is horribly broken. That was the easiest way to sanitize it. (The autoreconf line may look purposeless, but with it the package FTBFS.) Well I ran into this wile running build in pbuilder, but it runs clean on the local system, where I don't have automake1.9. Do you really need this exact version? -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: ocropus (updated package, 2nd try)
* Michal Čihař ni...@debian.org, 2009-11-30, 13:11: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/ocropus/ocropus_0.3.1-1.dsc What is the reason for running autoreconf in clean? Upstream build system is horribly broken. That was the easiest way to sanitize it. (The autoreconf line may look purposeless, but with it the package FTBFS.) Well I ran into this wile running build in pbuilder, but it runs clean on the local system, where I don't have automake1.9. Do you really need this exact version? Possibly this exact version is not needed. I was just following this part of /usr/share/doc/autotools-dev/README.Debian.gz: For automake 1.6 and above, and newest autoconf: [...] - Call the automake suite using *versioned* names (automake-1.9, etc), OR use autoreconf, but set the environment variables accordingly to the versioned names. Otherwise, you may get a higher version than what you expected. If you know your Makefile.am files are very well behaved, and will not break with a newer automake, versioned names are optional. Upstream is apparently using 1.9.6 so I thought it was the safest choice to hardcode automake-1.9. -- Jakub Wilk signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: ocropus (updated package, 2nd try)
Hi Dne Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:30:22 +0100 Jakub Wilk uba...@users.sf.net napsal(a): Possibly this exact version is not needed. I was just following this part of /usr/share/doc/autotools-dev/README.Debian.gz: For automake 1.6 and above, and newest autoconf: [...] - Call the automake suite using *versioned* names (automake-1.9, etc), OR use autoreconf, but set the environment variables accordingly to the versioned names. Otherwise, you may get a higher version than what you expected. If you know your Makefile.am files are very well behaved, and will not break with a newer automake, versioned names are optional. Upstream is apparently using 1.9.6 so I thought it was the safest choice to hardcode automake-1.9. Okay, I usually assume the Makefile.am is not that broken so it won't work in next version and use current automake. -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
RFS: ocropus (updated package, 2nd try)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.3.1-1 of package ocropus, which I intend to co-maintain with Jeffrey Ratcliffe. It builds these binary packages: ocropus - document analysis and OCR system ocropus-data - document analysis and OCR system --- data files The package appears to be lintian clean (except possible misspelling in binaries, which I am not going to address in this release). The upload would fix these bugs: 518772, 551167, 551174 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/ocropus/ocropus_0.3.1-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. -- Jakub Wilk signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: ocropus (updated package)
* Jeffrey Ratcliffe jeffrey.ratcli...@gmail.com, 2009-09-04, 23:27: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.3.1-1 of my package ocropus. Your package FTBFS in a clean chroot, because you are missing build-dependency on python: [...] ./utilities/check-style -f . /bin/bash: ./utilities/check-style: /usr/bin/python: bad interpreter: No such file or directory make[1]: *** [all] Error 126 make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/ocropus-0.3.1' dh_auto_build: make returned exit code 2 make: *** [build] Error 1 dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2 -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFS: ocropus (updated package)
Hello Jeffrey, Jeffrey Ratcliffe wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.3.1-1 of my package ocropus. Here's my review: - debian/copyright: you don't need list the files with the same license but with different copyright years into the different clauses, just merge them; - (at least) many ext/lua/*.c files don't have any license clause, so they are non-redistributable; - move 'dirs' to 'ocropus-data.dirs'; - there are lintian warnings. -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
RFS: ocropus (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.3.1-1 of my package ocropus. It builds these binary packages: ocropus- document analysis and OCR system ocropus-data - document analysis and OCR system --- data files The upload would fix these bugs: 518772 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/ocropus - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/ocropus/ocropus_0.3.1-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Jeffrey Ratcliffe signature.asc Description: Digital signature
