Re: RFS: warsow (updated packages)
On 9/7/07, Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@deb.at> wrote:
> * Jon Dowland <lists@alcopop.org> [2007-09-07 13:15:17 CEST]:
> > The first thing I notice is a fair number of build warnings along the
> > lines of
> >
> > game/q_math.c:910: warning: passing argument 1 of 'Matrix_Copy'
> > from incompatible pointer type
> >
> > That example was because the prototype specifies a const argument and is
> > passed a non-const argument. (argh, I've managed to avoid looking at C++
> > for so long!) so I suppose these are pretty benign. They could be fixed
> > with a cast in the caller I think. Would upstream accept a patch to that
> > effect? (this would just be nice, I wouldn't think this was a reason to
> > delay the package)
>
> Yeah, build warnings are pretty regularly ignored throughout the whole
> archive, but looking at them is a good thing from time to time
> (including doing patches, yes). And I would highly hope that upstream
> accepts them, they can easily become real problems, it wouldn't be the
> first thing that got stricter in gcc and turned from a warning into an
> real error.
>
> > On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 11:03:07AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs
> > wrote:
> > > I wondered about the need for repacking the source. I've
> > > read README.Debian and to be honest, given that the
> > > package doesn't move to main due to removing the things I
> > > don't see the real benefit of doing a dfsg version of the
> > > source package.
> >
> > I can't find README.Debian in the source package, nor the generated
> > binary package. Am I doing something stupid?
>
> To be honest, I was taking a look at the README.Debian from my
> installed warsow package, version 0.31.dfsg-6. If that was removed from
> a future version I would consider it a bug because it's useful
> documentation.
>
> #v+
> r4067 | ceros-guest | 2007-09-05 02:48:12 +0200 (Wed, 05 Sep 2007) | 1 line
> Changed paths:
> D /packages/trunk/warsow/debian/README.Debian
> ...
>
> Checking in new packaging for warsow-0.32
> #v-
>
> No idea why it was deleted, maybe just on accident. ceros?
It was deleted on purpose. The Battleye stuff is irrelevant now.
Upstream has removed support of it and will no longer use Battleye. As
far as the autotools stuff, that was only found under the "mapping"
directory. Pretty much every directory that contained stuff already
found in Debian or that wasn't needed was removed. Since they were all
removed, there wasn't much to say in a README.Debian.
Also with repacking the source, the reasoning for this is pretty much
explained with this message at
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-games-devel/2007-July/003982.html
> [config.{guess,sub} and lintian]
> > I like to handle this with a Build-Dependency on
> > autotools-dev and ln/rm calls in the right places to symlink
> > that package's versions of those two files. What do you
> > think of that approach?
>
> Sounds much more reasonable than to removing it from the source package
> to avoid a lintian error...
>
> So long,
> Rhonda
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-games-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
--
Regards,
Andres Mejia
Reply to: