On Fri 2023-01-13 14:24:12 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > Works for me. I'll change the repository description to remove the term > "prospective" (it's currently "proposed packaging history for pypdf2 and > its successor, pypdf")
This is now done, and i've uploaded 2.12.1 of pypdf2 with baseline packaging fixes, including a cleanup of debian/watch to only look for versions on the 2.x series. (took me three tries -- i had to correct my own mistake for the Vcs-* fields, and to disable two more network tests, sorry for the sloppiness) > I'll take a crack at that. I'll probably do it with two separate > branches in a single repository, so we can just have one place where the > work on the two packages is happening. I'm working on this now, but... > At the moment, i suspect the biggest challenge for getting a pypdf > package into debian is related to #1028570: the licensing for the sample > documents is not DFSG-free I've taken the approach for now that we'll just skip the sample-files. Looks like we can use the pytest annotations to do that, as well as skipping the externally-fetched files. (there are some missing upstream annotations, but upstream will hopefully accept those fixes directly: https://github.com/py-pdf/pypdf/pull/1551) I've pushed that work to debian/unstable in the same repository, and i should have an upload for pypdf 3.2.1 in NEW by the time you receive this. Please let me know if you have any concerns with the choices i've made here. --dkg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
