Re: RFS: assaultcube-data (updated package)

[Arand Nash <ienorand@gmail.com>]

On 10/07/11 15:18, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Dear mentors,
> >
> > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.1.0.4+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
> > anti-cheat module
> >
> > 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
> > server binaries
> >    * 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.
>
> Best regards,
> Michael

Hello.

- True, I've changed it to read "Upstream tarball no longer repacked; 
binaries not removed since used", would this be reasonably verbose?

- Yeah, 1.1.0.5 is in the works, but when is very uncertain (maybe this 
year...).
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 
unnecessary?
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 
the binaries.
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! :)
--
arand