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

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
      "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: