Hi Sandro, Apologies for the delay in making the changes.
Thanks for looking at the package. 2008/11/10 Sandro Tosi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > - please remove "XS-DM-Upload-Allowed" field (that should be called Done. > - "Document" in short description should be uncapitalized: think at it > like <package> is a <short description> Done. > - I don't know if it's importa (but may exist some backoffice tool > that cares about uppercases), but I'd uncapitalize the email address > in the maintainer field Done. > - please explain what OCR is in the long description, so that even > un-experienced users may understand what the package does Done. > - in long description "OCRopus is development is sponsored by Google" > i think it's better "OCRopus development is sponsored by Google", what > about? Yup. Done. > - you don't usually need "usr/bin" in debian/dirs (it's usually > created by install steps) Done. > - what about include in debian/ocroscript.1 the options listed at > http://sites.google.com/site/ocropus/documentation ? consider the > situation where a user has no net connection and still wants to use > ocroscript. And repeating the long description in the manpage adds no > information to the users: please expand it to be usefull and please Done. > - please add a debian/watch file, "man uscan" for examples I don't think this is possible for software hosted by Google > - since you claim to be "Standards-Version: 3.8.0" and using a patch > system, you have to add a debian/README.source explaining how you > patch the upstream source code (for a quilt example, take a look at > matplotlib package). That one passed me by. Thanks for pointing it out. Done. > - patches have no documentation about what they do; dpatch added a "# > DP: " line where you can explain what the patch does (along with other > information like the patch author), do you mind add such information > (to be clear about the patch scope)? I've just discovered that you can put comments # at the top of a quilt patch and refresh respects them. Done. > - given that "debian/patches/distclean" added some files to be deleted > by upstream distclean target, and "clean: unpatch" this means that the > patch is removed before clean target in debian/rules is called, hence > invalidating the patch. One solution could be add another target: > > clean: clean-patched unpatch > clean-patched: patch-stamp > <commands for the clean target> > > - It's usually better depends on patch-stamp (or the exported quilt > variable, check man quilt) instead of patch, so please fix build-stamp > target OK. I think I've done what you want. > - you can merge the "rm -f" lines into dh_clean call (they do the same thing) Done. > - do you need dh_installexamples and dh_install in binary-arch target ? Moved to the install target. > - please indent the "upstream authors" section in debian/copyright by > 4 spaces, and expand (or remove) "... and several others." Done. > - License section is indeed the copyright one Sorry - what is your point here? > - please add the correct license section, referring to apache-2.0, > adding the apache license boilerplate (as visible in > ./ocrocmd/version.h) Done. > - since you claim that your packaging is gplv3, and so are the patches > you wrote, are you sure that those patches can be applied to > apache-2.0 source code? please check. That's the reason we usually > suggest to license the packaging under the same license as upstream > code. Done. > - you completely missed to add information about "External Software" > in debian/copyright What do you mean by this? > - please check *every* source file: ./ocrocmd/version.h has a > different copyright year, and many others (2006-2008 seems to be the > right years); ./colib/nbest.h (and with it, many other) has different > copyright holder, and you have to list them in the debian/copyright > file; ext/lua/lua.h (and all the related files) has different > copyright holder and license: please add them too and check the > license is compatible with apache-2.0. > I can continue with many other files: please check the whole > upstream tarball, *every* files, (I exec, from the root level, "find . > -type f -exec less {} \;") and report all the copyright and license > information differing from the "main" ones and whether they are > compatible each other. licensecheck -r --copyright * only finds Apache-2 or unknown. > what about creating a "ocropus-common" package to contain all those > architecture independent files? Done. I've uploaded the package again. Regards Jeff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]