Re: Section 6 vs Section 1?
On 05/01/2014 04:05 AM, Markus Koschany wrote:
My question: since this was not done previously, is there some reason to
NOT put a package such as this into games? Is there an exception for
servers? Upstream is not aware of any reason for Section 1 vs Section 6
but I wanted to ask here. If there's a reason for the package to stay in
Section 1 then it'll save me a bunch of work ;) but I ultimately want to
do the Right Thing. Thoughts?
There is no exception for servers as long as the server is part of a
game which is the case here. I think moving the man pages from section 1
to 6 is the right thing to do.
Ok, perfect. I'll do it that way then. Thanks for the confirmation on that!
I am not completely sure how much you are involved in the maintenance of
the other worldforge packages. Do you know the reason why they can't
migrate to testing? As far as I know Vincent Cheng offered help with
sponsoring and there was also a sponsorship offer from a BSP in
Salzburg. So what is the blocker here? Is there anything that can be
done to fix those open RC bugs?
I'm familiar with them and I keep up on what's going on with them [1]
but Stephen Webb is the primary on them. As I understand it, there were
some concerns about a file in wfmath which was possibly
DFSG-incompatible. Associated discussions have been holding up the 1.0.2
version since last September [2] or possibly even earlier. That package
is in turn holding up many other packages (including Cyphesis, which
I've been working on). I know that Stephen was very busy with the recent
Ubuntu release but he was planning to tackle the wfmath issues once the
release was behind him. I'll ping him and see if there's anything he
needs but I anticipate that he's close to a solution. If he needs
assistance which I can't provide I'll post back with that request.
Thanks again!
-Olek
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=736315
[2] http://packages.qa.debian.org/w/wfmath.html
Reply to: