The main reason for the number of packages is to allow customisation. The reasons are different for the individual packages, for instance the scenery package is not needed if the user wants to use terrasync for scenery and the fgfs-base-models package is separated from the fgfs-base package so that it can be removed separately when needed to avoid problems with terrasync. I am quite new to this, can you point me towards information about the freeze exceptions in Debian, I understand the concept and know about the status of squeeze but don't know the qualifying factors in Debian. It doesn't seam to be mentioned in the policy or developers guides. Thanks, Chris On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 21:59 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, Chris Baines wrote: > > I am looking for a sponsor or many sponsors for my new and updated > > FlightGear related packages. I have included a summary of all the > > information in one email to make it easier to read and understand. > > > > The updated packages are "flightgear", "fgfs-base" and "simgear", all > > moving to the 2.0.0-1 version. > > > > They build these binary packages: > > flightgear - Flight Gear Flight Simulator > > fgfs-base - Flight Gear Flight Simulator - base files > > fgfs-base-models - Flight Gear Flight Simulator - base model files > > simgear-dev - Simulator Construction Gear -- development files > > simgear2.0.0 - Simulator Construction Gear -- shared libraries > > > > The new packages are,"fgfs-scenery-w130n30" that provides the default > > FlightGear Scenery, "fgrun", graphical FlightGear Launcher, "fgo", > > graphical FlightGear Launcher and packages > > for the FlightGear Aircraft Models, of which there are 13, named > > fgfs-aircraft-X where X is the name of the aircraft. > > That's a lot of packages, and they don't look like they'd be very big. > Is there a reason for not packaging them all in a single larger > flightgear-data arch-all package (source packages can now have several > .orig tarballs, so that shouldn't be a driving reason to have multiple > binary packages anymore)? > > > I would be glad if someone uploaded these packages for me. This is the > > third time I have submitted this request, I understand completely how > > complex all these packages are, and thus probably why no one has yet > > sponsored them, but is there another approach I could pursue to get them > > in to Debian, as would hate to see my work go to waste? > > It is past the first release cut date, it will probably help if you > offer some good convincing reasons why you should get a freeze exception > to replace the old flightgear packages with the new ones, and check it > with the release team. > > If you do get a freeze exception, it would be easier to find a sponsor, > I think. It is pointless to add new versions to unstable right now if > they're not going to be allowed in squeeze. > > OTOH, you CAN target the packages to experimental (and provide backports > through backports.debian.org when squeeze is released). Offering to do > that is might also help getting a sponsor. There is certainly no reason > to waste the effort you put on the packaging. > > I am sorry I cannot offer to be your sponsor at this time, I don't have > enough time to check packages (and it would be better to get someone > that plays flightgear, if possible). >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part