Re: RFC: dvipsk-ja package (Re: dvipsk-ja: doesn't work under TeXLive2009(libkpathsea5))
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 <henrich@debian.or.jp> 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 <uwabami@gfd-dennou.org>
<uwabami@debian.or.jp>
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
Reply to: