Re: RFS: ITA: tex4ht -- LaTeX and TeX for Hypertext (HTML)
Dear Frank, Thanks for the detailed response. This mail is a bit long please bear with me. On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 12:20:32PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: 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. I have amending the copyright file. Upstream author is using 1.3. I will e-mail him regarding the precise form of the modification restriction. This restriction also creates some trickiness for /etc/tex4ht/tex4ht.env --- which is a conffile after all! * debian/changelog: I have merged all the changelog entries into one. version - it's from the yearly release, isn't it?. Also, the new version is called 1.0 - is there a reason for this? I will make an enquiry with Eitan Gurari regarding this. Currently I have reverted to the earlier versioning scheme with the upstream addition of the time of modification as well. Please do not close such bugs in the changelog - see Omitted. I clearly should have read developer's reference more carefully! - 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? The files were created by Andrew Gray (previous Debian maintainer). It is unlikely that these will be used upstream as explained in 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. I agree with you and have made the changes. A much clearer (IMHO) version of README.src is in the newer version. 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. What I have is not fit for publication but the shell script for converting tex4ht-c.tex is enclosed. The result matches the existing file precisely and should work for any modifications made to tex4ht-c.tex as well. What I am planning to do is to provide a mechanism for someone who *makes changes* to the files in /src to incorporate these into a new Debian package. I'd prefer to have some information in the package about which other packages provide the /usr/bin/ht alternative. There actually used to be a package called ht. I have referred to the relevant bug (#101220) in the postinst so that this can be changed if necessary. On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:21:55PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: Somehow off this list I got the URL where one can download the packages you prepared. Which is http://www.imsc.res.in/~kapil/debian/tex4ht/ I'm sorry. I just forgot to check that debian-mentor's was on the cc. By the way, did you incorporate the other bugfixes on this page, or are they already in the current version? The current version incorporates all bugfixes over the last year. The documentation typos have been fixed in my version. * Are you sure that it makes sense to install all the fonts in /usr/share/texmf/tex4ht/ht-fonts/? In particular, what is the purpose in having /usr/share/texmf/tex4ht/ht-fonts/win? These fonts are used if one wants to generate an html file for incorporation into MS Word. This is perhaps still not a good enough reason :) Once again many thanks for your detailed suggestions. Regards, Kapil. -- http://www.imsc.res.in/~kapil/gpg.html for my Public Key. -- 1024D/5416E5B8 2004-10-13 Kapil Hari Paranjape [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024g/3BDF565B 2004-10-13 Key fingerprint = F160 CBB9 03C8 425D 4BBA 79F4 491F 8FDA 5416 E5B8 -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: ITA: tex4ht -- LaTeX and TeX for Hypertext (HTML)
Hello, On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 01:04:51PM +0530, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: Thanks to Frank and Vassilii for all the comments. I have made changes and will soon put up newer versions at the following location: http://www.imsc.res.in/~kapil/debian/tex4ht/ I have put up the promised newer version. The versioning scheme has reverted to MMDD.HHMM for the pre-upload period. Regards, Kapil. -- http://www.imsc.res.in/~kapil/gpg.html for my Public Key. -- 1024D/5416E5B8 2004-10-13 Kapil Hari Paranjape [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024g/3BDF565B 2004-10-13 Key fingerprint = F160 CBB9 03C8 425D 4BBA 79F4 491F 8FDA 5416 E5B8 -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: ITA: tex4ht -- LaTeX and TeX for Hypertext (HTML)
I have put up the promised newer version. The versioning scheme has reverted to MMDD.HHMM for the pre-upload period. Thanks for the quick change. Probably, in the changelog you want to say closes to the ITA bug. same with the bugs currently marked as fixed-upstream at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=tex4ht V. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: ITA: tex4ht -- LaTeX and TeX for Hypertext (HTML)
Kapil Hari Paranjape [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Dear Frank, Thanks for the detailed response. This mail is a bit long please bear with me. On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 12:20:32PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: 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. I have amending the copyright file. Upstream author is using 1.3. I will e-mail him regarding the precise form of the modification restriction. Note that he doesn't restrict the license. Instead, he grants an exception from a restriction that older LPPL versions made, that is his license is more liberal than older LPPL version. The wording of the exception sounds as if he wanted exactly what was introduced in LPPL-1.3; therefore I suggested to remove it, or consider to use identical wording to LPPL-1.3a and make the sentence just a repetition. This restriction also creates some trickiness for /etc/tex4ht/tex4ht.env --- which is a conffile after all! That is no problem, tex4ht.env says: % You are allowed to modify this file without changing % % its name, if you modify its signature. Changes to the % % signature can be introduced by changing the% % parenthesized content within the leading line of this % % note. % And LPPL-1.3a says: , | If you are not the Current Maintainer of the Work, you may distribute | a Derived Work provided the following conditions are met for every | component of the Work unless that component clearly states in the | copyright notice that it is exempt from that condition. Only the | Current Maintainer is allowed to add such statements of exemption to a | component of the Work. | |1. If a component of this Derived Work can be a direct replacement |for a component of the Work when that component is used with the |Base Interpreter, then, wherever this component of the Work |identifies itself to the user when used interactively with that |Base Interpreter, the replacement component of this Derived Work |clearly and unambiguously identifies itself as a modified version |of this component to the user when used interactively with that |Base Interpreter. ` So this is clearly no further restriction, it's just an explanation how it can be achieved that the component identifies itself as modified. - 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? The files were created by Andrew Gray (previous Debian maintainer). It is unlikely that these will be used upstream as explained in README.src. Are you sure? The man page could be interesting for any user, even outside Debian; and the Makefile was explicitly written with a PACKAGEDFOR variable that changes its behavior when set to Debian, or not. 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. What I have is not fit for publication but the shell script for converting tex4ht-c.tex is enclosed. The result matches the existing file precisely and should work for any modifications made to tex4ht-c.tex as well. I'll have a look What I am planning to do is to provide a mechanism for someone who *makes changes* to the files in /src to incorporate these into a new Debian package. Yes, fine. The documentation typos have been fixed in my version. I'd like to see this information in the changelog. * Are you sure that it makes sense to install all the fonts in /usr/share/texmf/tex4ht/ht-fonts/? In particular, what is the purpose in having /usr/share/texmf/tex4ht/ht-fonts/win? These fonts are used if one wants to generate an html file for incorporation into MS Word. This is perhaps still not a good enough reason :) Oh, well, I'd say it is. There are other tools than MS Word that can read such files, and the information seems to be more complete than in, e.g., the ooffice directory. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: RFS: ITA: tex4ht -- LaTeX and TeX for Hypertext (HTML)
Kapil Hari Paranjape [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Hello, On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 01:04:51PM +0530, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: Thanks to Frank and Vassilii for all the comments. I have made changes and will soon put up newer versions at the following location: http://www.imsc.res.in/~kapil/debian/tex4ht/ I have put up the promised newer version. The versioning scheme has reverted to MMDD.HHMM for the pre-upload period. wget http://www.imsc.res.in/~kapil/debian/tex4ht/tex4ht_1.0.20050216.2023-1.diff.gz --12:37:28-- http://www.imsc.res.in/%7Ekapil/debian/tex4ht/tex4ht_1.0.20050216.2023-1.diff.gz = `tex4ht_1.0.20050216.2023-1.diff.gz' Resolving www.imsc.res.in... 203.199.209.82 Connecting to www.imsc.res.in[203.199.209.82]:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found 12:37:29 ERROR 404: Not Found. Klicking on the file, it is displayed, but that doesn't help me, because if I gzip it myself, its md5sum will change. And I don't know whether it'd work at all with the orig.tar.gz, which unfortunately I deleted yesterday evening. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: RFS: ITA: tex4ht -- LaTeX and TeX for Hypertext (HTML)
Dear Frank, On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: Kapil Hari Paranjape [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: I have put up the promised newer version. The versioning scheme has reverted to MMDD.HHMM for the pre-upload period. wget http://www.imsc.res.in/~kapil/debian/tex4ht/tex4ht_1.0.20050216.2023-1.diff.gz --12:37:28-- http://www.imsc.res.in/%7Ekapil/debian/tex4ht/tex4ht_1.0.20050216.2023-1.diff.gz = `tex4ht_1.0.20050216.2023-1.diff.gz' Resolving www.imsc.res.in... 203.199.209.82 Connecting to www.imsc.res.in[203.199.209.82]:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found 12:37:29 ERROR 404: Not Found. There seems to be some problem with our web server's cache not refreshing itself. Anyway the correct files are now http://www.imsc.res.in/~kapil/debian/tex4ht/tex4ht_20050216.2023-1.* (Note the 1.0 has been dropped). You do not need to download the huge .orig.tar.gz again it hasn't changed. You only need to rename the orig.tar.gz file with the 1.0 dropped from the name. mv tex4ht_1.0.20050216.2023.orig.tar.gz tex4ht_20050216.2023.orig.tar.gz Thanks and regards, Kapil. -- http://www.imsc.res.in/~kapil/gpg.html for my Public Key. -- 1024D/5416E5B8 2004-10-13 Kapil Hari Paranjape [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024g/3BDF565B 2004-10-13 Key fingerprint = F160 CBB9 03C8 425D 4BBA 79F4 491F 8FDA 5416 E5B8 -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
knoppix-installer script
Hi, I am trying to customize the knoppix CD. By mistake i have removed the knoppix-installer script which i want back. How do i get it? Regards, dwiti
Re: RFS: ITA: tex4ht -- LaTeX and TeX for Hypertext (HTML)
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 01:04:51PM +0530, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: Hello, Thanks to Frank and Vassilii for all the comments. I have made changes and will soon put up newer versions at the following location: http://www.imsc.res.in/~kapil/debian/tex4ht/ I have a number of questions which follow. If you can point me to a document which contains the answers, I will gladly read it. 1. Versioning while testing: How does one give version numbers while testing the package? These versions will probably not be put on the main archive at any time. On the other hand those who are willing to test these packages will want to keep track of the version that they are testing! I do it the Debian way, increment the Debian version. There are other people using my .debs, and they need to see the version increase. Also, it would really suck to have different versions of foo_1.00-1_i386.deb floating around. 2. Upstream versions: The upstream author has until now followed the version numbering -MM-DD but the recently released version is 1.0.-MM-DD-HHMM. This is a Debian downgrade! What is an acceptable version number? You could contine using -MM-DD notation. You could also use an epoch: 1:1.0.-MM-DD-HHMM, which forces the otherwise lesser version to be greater. 3. Maintainer created files: The previous maintainer created some additional files (Makefiles, man pages etc.) which are *not* used upstream and probably will never be. Eventually we may migrate to the build procedure used upstream once that is published. Meanwhile, should these files reside in the debian directory? Depending on how many changes are in how many files, restricting the changes to debian/ might be a nice property. That way, the .diff.gz is functionally equivalent to a tar cjf --- debian/. If you have lots of changes, then it doesn't make sense to do it like that (unless you use dpatch, or similar, in which case all of those changes *will* be in debian/). -- Justin Pryzby whois jgalt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: ITA: tex4ht -- LaTeX and TeX for Hypertext (HTML)
Justin Pryzby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 01:04:51PM +0530, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: 1. Versioning while testing: How does one give version numbers while testing the package? These versions will probably not be put on the main archive at any time. On the other hand those who are willing to test these packages will want to keep track of the version that they are testing! I do it the Debian way, increment the Debian version. There are other people using my .debs, and they need to see the version increase. Also, it would really suck to have different versions of foo_1.00-1_i386.deb floating around. I do it the same way, but I usually use NMU version numbers for my testing: 1.00-0.1 for the first version I try to install, 1.00-0.2 for the second. Only when i upload it does it get its -1. I think this would also be a good approach for non-DD during communication with possible sponsors. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: RFS: ITA: tex4ht -- LaTeX and TeX for Hypertext (HTML)
Kapil Hari Paranjape [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 4. Copyright question: Upstream has added his LPPL copyright to /etc/tex4ht/tex4ht.env. I am distributing a modified version. What do I need to do in order to comply with LPPL? Or is it best to write a new version entirely? Read the file ;-). % You are allowed to modify this file without changing % % its name, if you modify its signature. Changes to the % % signature can be introduced by changing the% % parenthesized content within the leading line of this % % note. % Change the (unix) to (debian) or something like that (and of course adapt the date). Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Re: RFS: ITA: tex4ht -- LaTeX and TeX for Hypertext (HTML)
Kapil Hari Paranjape [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Dear Frank, On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: Kapil Hari Paranjape [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: I have put up the promised newer version. The versioning scheme has reverted to MMDD.HHMM for the pre-upload period. Some further questions/suggestions: - I think you want to close bug #234678, but you do close #234768. - is #219482 fixed? - isn't #256834 fixed, too? , | * Fixed some types in the html documentation. ` Do you mean typos? - It is common practice to have changelog entryl like Bumped standards version to $foo (no changes needed), or listing the changes. - You should not depend only on a virtual package, gs, but rather use something like Depends: gs-gpl | gs. The reason is that - I think you should remove debian/diffs... - debian/postinst: You create symlinks in postinst - why don't you include them in the deb? - debian/postrm: Why do you rm -rf /etc/tex4ht? I guess there is no consensus whether a package may delete locally generated files in their directories upon purge, some people say they shouldn't. I have no strong opinion, but here it seems that it is just unnecessary - is there a specific reason for this? - I think it is better to set dh_compat explicitly. - In the versions I downloaded, there are still lintian/linda warnings about the script and the executable font files. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
helping script
Hello! I have used many GNU/Linux systems for 8 years, but only very recently I found Debian, or at least the real wonder it is :) I would like to start the process of becoming a DD as soon as possible, so I want to learn how to package. So, I wrote the following script in order to help me finding the dependencies of an application/library. It (hopefully) outputs all needed libraries package names sorted and with no duplicates. I'd like to ask the experienced developers if it outputs the correct information and if it can be improved (example of usage: deps /usr/bin/kcalc) ### tmpfile=~/.dependencies-$(date +%Y%m%d%H%M).tmp for dep in $(objdump -p $1 | grep NEEDED | cut -c 15-) do dpkg -S $dep | cut --delimiter=: -f -1 $tmpfile done sort $tmpfile | uniq rm -f $tmpfile ### I'll try to find a sponsor as soon as I have my first package ready. Thank you Helder -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: helping script
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 10:52:48PM +, Helder Correia wrote: Hello! Hello. I have used many GNU/Linux systems for 8 years, but only very recently I found Debian, or at least the real wonder it is :) I would like to start the process of becoming a DD as soon as possible, so I want to learn how to package. So, I wrote the following script in order to help me finding the dependencies of an application/library. It (hopefully) outputs all needed libraries package names sorted and with no duplicates. I'd like to ask the experienced developers if it outputs the correct information and if it can be improved (example of usage: deps /usr/bin/kcalc) Well experienced developers wrote similar scripts long time ago. Some examples are in Developers' Reference. And there is dh_shlibdeps part of debhelper which is aimed at the same problem and in addition it will fill your control file with correct names and versions of needed packages. So although your script makes thing quite good, I still recommend you to use existing tools, and if you don't like them, fix them ;) [...] I'll try to find a sponsor as soon as I have my first package ready. Are you working on some program already? I hope you filled ITP bugreport about that. regards fEnIo -- ,''`. Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | irc:fEnIo : :' : 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Polska `. `' phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user `- http://skawina.eu.org | jid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | rlu:172001 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: helping script
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 10:52:48PM +, Helder Correia wrote:
Hello!
Hi,
I have used many GNU/Linux systems for 8 years, but only very recently I
found Debian, or at least the real wonder it is :)
I would like to start the process of becoming a DD as soon as possible, so I
want to learn how to package.
So, I wrote the following script in order to help me finding the dependencies
of an application/library. It (hopefully) outputs all needed libraries
package names sorted and with no duplicates.
I'd like to ask the experienced developers if it outputs the correct
information and if it can be improved (example of usage: deps /usr/bin/kcalc)
###
tempfile=`tempfile` would be better:)
On that note,
dpkg -S $(objdump -p $1 |grep NEEDED |awk '{print $2}') |cut -d: -f1 |sort -u
Justin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: helping script
Justin Pryzby (Re: helping script):
On that note,
dpkg -S $(objdump -p $1 |grep NEEDED |awk '{print $2}') |cut -d: -f1 |sort
-u
That happens to be so much beautifully coded and faster, indeed. Thank you
very much :)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
