[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Review pkg gmqcc (dependency for Xonotic)



On Sunday 26 January 2014 15:23:50 Anton Balashov wrote:
> Hi Devid and team,
> 
> After 3th months of pause, I started working with gmqcc again. Let's
> finish that packaging.
> I had to recreate the git repo.
> Copyright looks good for me. Fix me if I'm wrong about that.
> 
> Devid, team, pls, review the package and give yours opinions.
> 
> P.S.
> I packaged the latest release: 3.5.0
> 
> BTW:
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-games/gmqcc.git doesn't work
> now. Something was changed?

The copyright file did not quite cover some small cases so I updated it.  
Also, there are some files without explicit copyright.  I believe that 
these files were written solely for gmqcc and have commented about this.  
(Some of these files are not used in the debian package, but I thought 
it is best practice to add the comments nevertheless.)

I have changed the distribution value to UNRELEASED in debian/changelog.  
It should stay this way until it gets uploaded to the archive.

An outstanding issue that I see is that the package currently states 
compliance with Policy version 3.9.4. I do not believe that there should 
be any problems to upgrade to 3.9.5, but you should use the upgrading 
checklist to do this.  One version is available here:

/usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist-1.html

but there are others.  (Lintian should warn you about this.)

Note for the future: you did not push your upstream/0.3.5 git tag.  I 
have made one.

A suggestion - you may want to use the upstream git history rather than 
importing tarballs.  This is up to you.

The only remaining issue I see is what we discussed is about installing 
the latex document into an arch:all package.  It is up to you if you 
choose to do this, but I am not sure if it would be a requirement before 
the package would be accepted into debian.  If you are just unsure what 
to do, I can help.

Thanks for packaging this!

David


Reply to: