[Debian-med-packaging] packaging for camitk 3.3.1 ready

[Emmanuel Promayon]

Dear Andreas,

> After the successful build I realised that this issue
>
>
> E: camitk source: source-is-missing sdk/applications/wizard/resources/player.swf
> N:
> N:    The source of the following file is missing. Lintian checked a few
> N:    possible paths to find the source, and do not find it.
> N:
> N:    Please repack your package to include the source or add it to
> N:    "debian/missing-sources" directory.
> N:
> N:    If this is a false-positive, please report a bug against Lintian.
> N:
> N:    Severity: serious, Certainty: possible
> N:
> N:    Check: cruft, Type: source
> N:
>
>
> is not yet dealt with.  If there is no source for this binary file can it
> somehow be dropped?

Sorry I missed this one. This file was included in CamiTK 3.2 and even 
"lintian -E -o -I camitk_3.3.1-1_amd64.changes" on my machine ("not too 
much" up to date testing) did not complained.
This error is a new one in lintian 2.5.22 (I have version 2.5.21 on my 
"kind of" testing, that is why it did not show up).

I managed to get the error (Ô the things you learn) when using the 
B10lintian hooks from [1].

player.swf was used to embed a mp4 movie in a automatically generated 
documentation when using the CamiTK wizard (a GUI software that helps 
developer to generate new CamiTK plugins). Therefore it is not very 
important at all.

I added a patch that remove the use of the player.swf in the generated 
html documentation.
I will make sure this is propagated upstream.
I also will make sure that the next CamiTK version will get rid of this 
file (and be happy about it!).

My first question: is it possible to get rid of it in the current 
version by using:
"rm -f sdk/applications/wizard/resources/player.swf"
somewhere in debian/rules (and if yes, in which rule would you recommend 
to add it) ?
Or is it useless anyways as this is coming with the source tarball?

My second question: lintian says it is possible to add the file in 
debian/missing-sources directory. I read in [2] that it is not a bad idea.
Do you have any idea, if I have to add the file as:
debian/missing-sources/sdk/applications/wizard/resources/player.swf
or just as:
debian/missing-sources/player.swf

I saw on this mailing list [3] that the package phyutility seems to have 
a similar problem with one of the file, but I am not sure how similar 
this is. But anyway, I can promise it won't stay in the upstream tarball 
(and even give a link to the svn commit removing this file very soon!)

Thanks again for your expertise.
Best regards,
Mahnu

[1] http://documentation.thebigrede.net/maintainers/cowbuilder.html
[2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=736873#8
[3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-med/2014/04/msg00022.html
-- 
Emmanuel Promayon
UJF-Grenoble 1, CNRS, TIMC-IMAG UMR 5525 (équipe GMCAO)
Institut de l'Ingénierie de l'Information de Santé
Faculté de Médecine - 38706 La Tronche cedex - France
Tel. +33/0 456 52 00 03 - Fax. +33/0 456 52 00 55 - B7

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2947 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-med-packaging/attachments/20140503/4967d96e/attachment.bin>