Re: dicomscope documentation

2009-01-22 Thread Andreas Tille
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: I cannot reproduce here. Can anyone else reproduce that issue ? Probably not. It was just me so forget it. I have seen that the doc-base file is wrong - probably because I missinterpreted the doc-base documentation about more than one document pe

Re: dicomscope documentation

2009-01-22 Thread Mathieu Malaterre
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > >> WARNING: my get-orig-source is not capable of detecting that. You'll >> need to manually delete any previous src tarball. > > I purged all old stuff and obtained a new upstream source using y

Re: dicomscope documentation

2009-01-22 Thread Andreas Tille
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: WARNING: my get-orig-source is not capable of detecting that. You'll need to manually delete any previous src tarball. I purged all old stuff and obtained a new upstream source using your script. Unfortunately pbuilder stumbles upon: QUILT_PATCHE

Re: dicomscope documentation

2009-01-21 Thread Mathieu Malaterre
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Charles Plessy wrote: >> Le Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:47:42PM +0100, Michael Hanke a écrit : >> > >> > Please pardon my ignorance, but is a PDF itself not considered >> > problematic since it is most likely not the 'source'? > >> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:10:25PM

Re: dicomscope documentation

2009-01-12 Thread Charles Plessy
> Le Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:47:42PM +0100, Michael Hanke a écrit : > > > > Please pardon my ignorance, but is a PDF itself not considered > > problematic since it is most likely not the 'source'? > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:10:25PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Instead of repacking a correct

Re: dicomscope documentation

2009-01-12 Thread Andreas Tille
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Michael Hanke wrote: Please pardon my ignorance, but is a PDF itself not considered problematic since it is most likely not the 'source'? No, this is not ignorance and often leads to problems - so this is a good hint at least. So Mathieu, if you write to upstream please a

Re: dicomscope documentation

2009-01-12 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:47:42PM +0100, Michael Hanke a écrit : > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:10:25PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > Le Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:54:43AM +0100, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit : > > > > > > dicomscope package is shipped with old documentation (for dicomscope > > > 3.5

Re: dicomscope documentation

2009-01-12 Thread Andreas Tille
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: How should I handle that ? 0. Ask upstream to provide proper documentation? 1. Replace the pdf file in place during the get-orig-source step ? Might be reasonabel once we are changing the archive anyway. It finally is in the interest of our u

Re: dicomscope documentation

2009-01-12 Thread Michael Hanke
Hi, On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:10:25PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:54:43AM +0100, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit : > > Andreas, > > > > dicomscope package is shipped with old documentation (for dicomscope > > 3.5.1). Instead the proper pdf should be the one from: > > >

Re: dicomscope documentation

2009-01-12 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:54:43AM +0100, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit : > Andreas, > > dicomscope package is shipped with old documentation (for dicomscope > 3.5.1). Instead the proper pdf should be the one from: > > ftp://dicom.offis.de/pub/dicom/offis/software/dscope/dscope360/docs/ > > How

dicomscope documentation

2009-01-12 Thread Mathieu Malaterre
Andreas, dicomscope package is shipped with old documentation (for dicomscope 3.5.1). Instead the proper pdf should be the one from: ftp://dicom.offis.de/pub/dicom/offis/software/dscope/dscope360/docs/ How should I handle that ? 1. Replace the pdf file in place during the get-orig-source st