Re: RFS: assaultcube-data (updated package)
On 10/07/11 15:18, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 184.108.40.206+repacknot1-1
of my package "assaultcube-data".
It builds these binary packages:
assaultcube-data - data files for AssaultCube
assaultcube-server-anticheat - AssaultCube server with closed source
The changes are:
* Update manpages
- CC-BY-NC-SA (previous license was incorrect given content used)
- Few formatting fixes
* Update debian/copyright
- Note license of manpages
- "Files:" headers pointing at directory instead of license file.
* Update debian/rules to dh7 format
* New package: assaultcube-server-anticheat, installs upstream
* Create a wrapper script for the server with "--help" for manpage
* Don't repack anymore.
Thanks a lot for updating this package. Yet the new non-repacking leaves some
doubts to me:
- "Don't repack anymore." is a nice hint that something has changed, but yet it
left me to find this out myself via the debdiff.
- Using "repacknot1" as version appears to be a cruel hack. Ideally we'd have a
new upstream version that could be packaged, but if that doesn't happen
soonish, we'll have to live with that hack. (Introducing an epoch doesn't seem
like a better solution either...)
- Why do server binaries belong to a "data" package? Isn't that just a hack to
avoid a new source package?
- The original license appears to disallow re-packaging/splitting, hence there
must be some exclusive exception provided to Debian. This is, however, not
detailed in the copyright file.
- True, I've changed it to read "Upstream tarball no longer repacked;
binaries not removed since used", would this be reasonably verbose?
- Yeah, 220.127.116.11 is in the works, but when is very uncertain (maybe this
I discussed the renaming on IRC (mentors/games) and it seemed like this
was the most reasonable solution.
- Would splitting it into two source packages be better, it seems a tad
Upstream distributes one "AC" package with precompiled binaries and data
for "compile-less" usage (which Debian uses only for data currently),
and an AC-source package, which Debian uses to create the packages with
Since the binaries comes in the upstream tarball which Debian calls
"-data" I guessed it would be best to use this source package as-is..
- Noted (complicates the current deletion of the binaries as well, I
guess), I've sent the question of special permission for the Debian
project to the main project people, we'll see where that discussion leads.
Thanks for reviewing! :)