Hi Dmitry, On Sat, 29. Dec 14:02 Dmitry Smirnov <onlyjob@member.fsf.org> wrote: > I have also shortened the long description of brainparty-data but made a > > remark that the package includes more than 400 images and sounds. > > OK, although I doubt this remark carry any useful information. > (would you install the game only because it has >NNN images?) I usually split the description of data packages in two paragraphs. The first one repeats the most important part of the game description. (To which game does the data package belong?) The second part is about the content. In this case it is remarkable that this collection of minigames ships more than 400 free images and sounds which someone could use in another project. So i wouldn't just install the game because of the huge number of images but would probably pick this _data_ package if i searched for free images and sounds. Suggestions how to improve the second paragraph? > > > > I have extracted the changelog section from the README and added an > > override_dh_installdocs section to debian/rules so lintian stopped > > complaining. > > Very nice Thanks. > Nowever it should be done in get-orig-source so ChangeLog would be shipped as > part of DFSG-repackaged orig.tar. Extracting the changelog from the README file is a rather pedantic issue. It's just to show how i would do it. I also think an override section in debian/rules is the right place because it's a Debian specific issue which can be solved easily during build time. But personally i can live without an additional changelog and just the README. On the other hand i happily volunteer for keeping this little snippet up to date for future upstream releases. :) > > > I've added one missing copyright holder and myself to copyrights. > > Sorry, I wouldn't be so sure about missing copyright holder. > Indeed Scott Ewart that you added as copyright holder is listed in CREDITS > file however there is nothing to suggest that he holds copyright for any > particular file. Moreover, you've totally made up the copyright year. > I think we should have a solid foundation for copyright information and > inventing copyright years doesn't seems like right thing to do IMHO. > > There is nowhere in upstream files I could find a proper copyright statement > claiming copyright for Scott Ewart's work. Interesting. My reasoning is Scott Ewart is credited with making some (all?) of the game's art in the CREDITS file and ingame. So he made a contribution to the game which is licensed under GPL-3+ hence i think he should be mentioned in Debian's copyright file. Then the logical consequence would be that the copyright year must be 2010 because all upstream releases were in this year. But if you disagree i suggest writing an e-mail to Paul Hudson and getting a clarification from his side. > > All in all the package is dfsg free, it works and the games are fun. If > > you agree, i can convert the RFS bug report to an ITP and start looking > > for a sponsor. I'd be glad if you joined later as another maintainer of > > brainparty. I haven't removed you from Uploaders yet. > > I'm definitely staying as maintainer. I like this game and I will be available > for help. Great! > The game have another problem though. Before looking for sponsor could you > please have a look (if you have required skills) why game is using so much CPU > when idle? It's probably a bug which would be nice to fix before upload. I see you are referring to this launchpad bug report. [1] I haven't even realized this bug until you have mentioned it. Well, it's hardly noticeable on my three year old core duo here but it might be a small issue on a smartphone or tablet pc. I suggest to contact the upstream developer. Maybe he has some advice or even a patch. But i don't think that this should delay the search for a sponsor. > Also Markus, please forgive my ranting but I've noticed you converted > repository to git-buildpackage layout and merged upstream source and media > content with packaging. This is the only thing that I don't like about your > changes. [...] You are calling this a rant? That was more like a warm summer breeze. :P To make it short, you have put all the work in the initial release and i have no problem to adopt to your personal packaging preferences. I personally feel more comfortable with git and git-buildpackage but i'm not wedded with these tools. However i think keeping the upstream sources and media files in a public git repository is a good thing IMO. Imagine upstream vanishes and we loose the possibility to download the sources from launchpad. Therefore i think it is always a good idea to save them on a Debian server in addition to the usual Debian package in the archive. In this case the media files are a valuable asset and it's a good thing to keep them safe and secure. > Any chance you consider dropping upstream files from packaging please? If you insist, it will take just a few seconds to revert the changes and to delete the upstream and pristine-tar branches. Please let me know how you'd like me to proceed. Btw can you remove the package at mentors so i can later upload the new package? Regards, Markus [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/brainparty/+bug/802048
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature