Re: Re-review request/RFS for current packaging of Red Eclipse

[Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>]

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Martin Erik Werner wrote:

> Hello again, upstream has now released Red Eclipse 1.2 and hence this is
> partly a RFS, partly a re-review request.
...
> [1]
> Is this motivation good enough for not using stand-alone Enet?

Hmm, I don't have a good answer for that.

> [2]
> I have argumented that we should treat this as Public Domain, but gotten
> no clear answer if it is good enough for Debian, see
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/01/msg00004.html
> I have contacted the author (no response yet) with a request for CC0
> clarification, but is this really a necessity?

An FTP Assistant seems to think thats fine, good enough for me then:

<Tolimar> arand: Seems okay to me, as we have a quite clear indication
of the authors will.

> [3]
> I've tried adding at least the compressed maps types to file(1), see
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=652988 , the other
> things I'm unsure how I would do, cubescript in particular has no good
> indicator, apart from a .cfg file ending :/

Thanks.

> [4]
> List of duplicates have been forwarded, but it's mostly a wontfix since
> linking isn't as easy on windows.

What about removing the dupes and only referring to the remaining files?

> [5]
> I have removed ${shlibs:Depends} from the -dbg packages, is this
> correct?

I think so yeah.

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise