Re: Debian Games Team Policy
On 05/14/2011 08:06 AM, Karl Goetz wrote:
> As it happens, I have some questions too.
>
> * when you say 'should have [eg. a desktop file] does this mean 'must'?
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
RFC 2119. [http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2119.html]
:)
I'd extend that to "binary" is meant as file in /usr/bin or /usr/games
NOT as binary package as you interpreted it in the wiki.
> * can we require packages be in (D)VCS?. I'd definitely *NOT*
> require people have the full upstream source in there. Thoughts from
> others?
MY point here is:
SVN with mergeUpstream via svn-buildpackage (so debian-only in svn)
Git with pristine-tar via git-buildpackage (so full source in git)
> * IIRC this was discussed at the meeting after/as i left, so could
> someone clarify this? "Updating to the latest debhelper version is
> considered fine". Does this mean "bump compat and dependency to a
> supported version" or "replace with the current version in sid"?
As I understood our discussion it should be the later one.
> * Why are there two pets? Whats the difference?
The one Ansgar hosts (on 43-1.org) has support for Git, but misses
something else. It's somewhere in the meeting log. We should merge those
two imho.
> * Related, can we try and streamline the sponsoring for games somehow?
> is the wiki page now the place to look for sponsors, or is there
> still multiple ways to go?
As of now, we have wiki and PET.
I'd prefer PET-only, but this will need some transition (and decision)
time :)
Reply to: