Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-08-04 Thread Johannes Schauer
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-08-04 23:03:54) > * Johannes Schauer , 2014-08-02, 09:33: > >I'm not familiar enough with the kind of disaster that may > >happen when linking C++11 compiled code to C++98 libraries > > Crashes, I suppose. > > >I also do not see any advised fix or how to prevent the

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-08-04 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Johannes Schauer , 2014-08-02, 09:33: I'm not familiar enough with the kind of disaster that may happen when linking C++11 compiled code to C++98 libraries Crashes, I suppose. I also do not see any advised fix or how to prevent the situation. There's not much that can be done, other than:

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-08-02 Thread Johannes Schauer
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-08-01 22:31:46) > * Johannes Schauer , 2014-07-30, 07:24: > >>>I do not understand why it fails for you but not for me. > >>How did you run the tests? I ran sadt(1) in the freshly-unpacked > >>source tree. > > > >I ran `adt-run -o /tmp/log --source pdf2htmlex_0.11+ds-

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-08-01 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Johannes Schauer , 2014-07-30, 07:24: I do not understand why it fails for you but not for me. How did you run the tests? I ran sadt(1) in the freshly-unpacked source tree. I ran `adt-run -o /tmp/log --source pdf2htmlex_0.11+ds-1.dsc --- schroot sid-amd64-sbuild` This is what the adt-run

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-29 Thread Johannes Schauer
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-28 23:08:11) > >I do not understand why it fails for you but not for me. > > How did you run the tests? I ran sadt(1) in the freshly-unpacked source > tree. I ran `adt-run -o /tmp/log --source pdf2htmlex_0.11+ds-1.dsc --- schroot sid-amd64-sbuild` Both invocati

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-28 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Johannes Schauer , 2014-07-28, 07:18: The DEP-8 tests fail here. I see lots of errors like this: Error: Cannot open file /home/jwilk/pdf2htmlex-0.11+ds/share/base.min.css for embedding Command return code 1: /usr/bin/pdf2htmlEX --data-dir /home/jwilk/pdf2htmlex-0.11+ds/share --dest-dir /tmp/

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-27 Thread Johannes Schauer
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-26 18:35:23) > * Johannes Schauer , 2014-07-26, 12:37: > >upstream responded and I updated their name with the one they told me. > > Perhaps also update patch headers? Done. > >I used the (fairly incomplete) testsuite of pdf2htmlEX to run a DEP-8 > >test. > > T

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-26 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Johannes Schauer , 2014-07-26, 12:37: upstream responded and I updated their name with the one they told me. Perhaps also update patch headers? I used the (fairly incomplete) testsuite of pdf2htmlEX to run a DEP-8 test. The DEP-8 tests fail here. I see lots of errors like this: Error: Ca

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-19 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Johannes Schauer , 2014-07-18, 12:00: But there's a good reason --dry-run is described as “unsafe” in the mktemp manpage. What is the reason? I thought the reason for it being called "unsafe" was that if you use --dry-run first and then create the directory with that name yourself then some

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-18 Thread Johannes Schauer
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-17 13:36:47) > export HOME=`mktemp --dry-run` > > This sets HOME literally to `mktemp --dry-run`. I think you wanted to > say: > > export HOME=$(shell mktemp --dry-run) oh shoot it's not shell, it's make... while that method will surely also yield a nonexistant

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-17 Thread Jakub Wilk
You added: export HOME=`mktemp --dry-run` This sets HOME literally to `mktemp --dry-run`. I think you wanted to say: export HOME=$(shell mktemp --dry-run) But there's a good reason --dry-run is described as “unsafe” in the mktemp manpage. So how about something like this instead: export H

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-17 Thread Johannes Schauer
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-17 09:46:58) > * Johannes Schauer , 2014-07-17, 08:31: > >What do we do about > >debian-watch-file-should-dversionmangle-not-uversionmangle until > >#753772 is fixed? Ignore it or create an override? > > Either way works for me. okay then I'll leave things as th

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-17 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Johannes Schauer , 2014-07-17, 08:31: What do we do about debian-watch-file-should-dversionmangle-not-uversionmangle until #753772 is fixed? Ignore it or create an override? Either way works for me. Is creating files outside the build directory and not in $TMPDIR a policy violation? Poli

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-16 Thread Johannes Schauer
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-16 21:21:15) > Now --download-current-version is broken: > > $ uscan --download-current-version --destdir . > uscan warning: In debian/watch no matching hrefs for version 0.11 in watch > line > https://github.com/coolwanglu/pdf2htmlEX/releases .*/v(\d[\d\.]*)\.t

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-16 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Johannes Schauer , 2014-07-16, 08:36: Note that currently uscan would generate .orig.tar with wrong version; see bug #753772. I can confirm that I was missing a uversionmangle in my debian/watch. This is fixed now. Now --download-current-version is broken: $ uscan --download-current-versi

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-15 Thread Johannes Schauer
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-16 00:26:09) > >uscan does this automatically when repacking upstream tarballs. > > I don't believe this is the case. And the .orig.tar you uploaded to > mentors certainly contains debian/: indeed, you are right! I fixed it and the upstream tarball now comes with

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-15 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Johannes Schauer , 2014-07-13, 22:23: If you look at the upstream repository you'll see a Debian directory Oops, I missed it. (Wouldn't it make sense to remove it from .orig.tar?) uscan does this automatically when repacking upstream tarballs. I don't believe this is the case. And the .or

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-13 Thread Johannes Schauer
Hi again, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-13 20:24:00) > >>Who is the copyright holder for the files in debian/? According to the > >>copyright file it's WANG Lu. :-P > >Indeed it was. If you look at the upstream repository you'll see a > >Debian directory > > Oops, I missed it. > (Wouldn't it make

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-13 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Johannes Schauer , 2014-07-12, 20:32: I don't doubt that compatibility.min.js is needed. What I questioned is whether we ever need compatibility.js in the binary package. Indeed. I missed the "non-" of "non-minified" in your message. The non-minified version was indeed not used and in fact som

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-12 Thread Johannes Schauer
Hi, wow, amazing that you are still investing your time in improving my packaging - thanks a lot! :D Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-12 18:24:26) > I don't doubt that compatibility.min.js is needed. What I questioned is > whether we ever need compatibility.js in the binary package. Indeed. I missed

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-12 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Johannes Schauer , 2014-07-12, 13:06: Is the non-minified version used by pdf2htmlEX at runtime at all? I think it isn't, but I could be wrong. If it's not, then maybe get rid of the symlink, and drop libjs-pdf from Depends? Yes it is. You can check that it is used by running the test suite

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-12 Thread Johannes Schauer
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-12 11:50:39) > It would guard against the possibility of losing source. > > But it could still happen that compatibility.js and compatibility.min.js > versions (in /usr/share/pdf2htmlEX/) don't match. okay. Indeed that's undesirable. > Is the non-minified versio

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-12 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Johannes Schauer , 2014-07-12, 09:40: Hmm, there is no protection against the two versions getting of sync. Which means that there is no guarantee that we are shipping source for the minified version. :( But setting "Built-Using: pdf.js" would guard against that, would it not? It would gu

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-12 Thread Johannes Schauer
Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-11 23:48:15) > * Johannes Schauer , 2014-07-11, 21:33: > >How did you find them? I ran codespell but that didnt find the ones you > >found. > > I read carefully the source code. :-) (I admit that vim's spell checking > helped me a bit.) I just discovered that my

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-11 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Johannes Schauer , 2014-07-11, 21:33: How did you find them? I ran codespell but that didnt find the ones you found. I read carefully the source code. :-) (I admit that vim's spell checking helped me a bit.) I'm unsure how I should handle the minified js. Surely it is desirable to include

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-11 Thread Johannes Schauer
Hi, wow, thanks a lot for looking into this! :D Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-07-11 20:59:44) > fix-spelling seems to be mainly about fixing the use "-" as minus sign in > manpage... Could split the patch into two, one for hyphens, another for > actual spelling mistakes? okay. Done. > More typos I f

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-11 Thread Jakub Wilk
Control: owner -1 ! * Johannes Schauer , 2014-07-11, 13:48: http://mentors.debian.net/package/pdf2htmlex Direct link to .dsc: https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/pdf2htmlex/pdf2htmlex_0.11+ds-1.dsc fix-spelling seems to be mainly about fixing the use "-" as minus sign in manpage...

Bug#754463: RFS: pdf2htmlex/0.11+ds-1

2014-07-11 Thread Johannes Schauer
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: wishlist Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "pdf2htmlex" * Package name: pdf2htmlex Version : 0.11+ds-1 Upstream Author : WANG Lu * URL : http://github.com/coolwanglu/pdf2htmlEX * License : GPL