Hello James, On Tue 19 Jan 2021 at 11:06AM -08, James R Barlow wrote:
> Jay, the patch looks good to me. I did not try to run it, but it looks like > it covers everything important. Ah, thanks for the review. > Sean, there is no license change to pikepdf. ocrmypdf did have the > license change. If this is the holdup, ocrmypdf 10.x should work > pikepdf 2.x with a trivial patch - the main change in pikepdf 2.x was > dropping support for Python 3.5. If you are interested in the ocrmypdf > 10.x + pikepdf 2.x combination I can test it and do any > patches. pikepdf is now used by other applications in Debian > (e.g. pdfarranger). Hrm, sorry I misremembered which package changed its license. Debian has entered our pre-release transitions freeze, so I will have to pass on your kind offer to help update pikepdf without updating ocrmypdf, unfortunately :( > ocrmypdf 11's d/copyright was updated to reflect the current copyright > status. The updates you make to the d/copyright in your branch definitely help speed the process, but I've found you don't always include everything, and I normally need to make further edits to satisfy the format specification. Certainly not your role to work on this, and I appreciate the edits you make and your prompt response to queries. > It's been half a year since the ocrmypdf license change and I have not > heard anything from Debian about it. Is there a "queue" somewhere or > someone we can prod to complete this review? I'm afraid not, only I as maintainer have responsibility for this. It's the sort of task that is difficult to spread responsibility for, unlike providing patches to fix bugs. -- Sean Whitton
