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

Re: Steam for Linux? No thanks.


>>>   http://ftp-master.debian.org/new/steam_1.0.0.28-1.html
>>  Here is the updated list of notes (after discussion above):
>>  0) Please consider using package name steam-nonfree
> Why? I agree with smcv on this point.

Have you read my replies [1] and [2]?

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-games/2013/02/msg00058.html
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-games/2013/02/msg00060.html

>>  instead of steam, and
>>     use ITP #701157 instead of ITP #440607.
> Either/both bugs can be closed independent of the upload.

Yes, this is the question about consistency. You would not have any doubt if
it were completely another program with the same name. In that case you would
require a new ITP.

>>  1) Please update debian/copyright to include the information about licenses
>>     and copyright holders of libraries in bootstraplinux_ubuntu12_32.tar.xz.
>>     .
>>     Or consider deleting this file from source package: it could be downloaded
>>     during package installing.
> I agree with the former solution here.

No problem here. Just some extra work and debian/copyright file will become much

>>     .
>>     I believe this should be done before upload to NEW queue.
> Too late though.

Nope. Also ftp-master could reject the package because of not completed
debian/copyright file.

>>  2) Conflicts: steam-lib.
>>     Please remove this from the package: there is no such package in Debian,
>>     see: http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=steam-lib
> I missed the architecture bit when I last looked at the page. Yes the conflicts should be removed.
>>  3) Please create a git repo with only ./debian/ directory. It will simplify
>>     the maintaining of the package.
>>     .
>>     For example, I will be able to check package more closely before it will
>>     enter to Debian archive. Also I might to propose you my debian/patches,
>>     debian/watch and maybe something else.
> Certainly into a vcs, and everyone has their own preference about svn versus git, all vs ./Debian. I wonder what michael's preferences are?

Yes, any variant is good.

> The only change you suggest which it would be required to do before NEW is the package name, but I don't agree with renaming it and haven't seen the argument to do so.

Could you comment my replies [1] and [2]?

> All the others could be done in a second upload.

Sorry, but I think that debian/copyright should be correct at initial upload.
We can ask ftp-masters about their opinion.

Best regards,

Reply to: