Re: Bug#740565: redeclipse-data: should be in main
On Sun, 2014-07-27 at 15:30 +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> On 27.07.2014 10:23, Martin Erik Werner wrote:
> > As far as I see it, it is still uncertain whether redeclipse-data
> > belonging in main is a correct assumption, a re-review of the content
> > would be needed, from the previous discussion I think it is indeed
> > *probable* that it would be found fit for main.
> I have reviewed redeclipse and redeclipse-data file-by-file. The patches
> are now attached to this bug report. The licenses are DFSG-free and
> there is not a single file that wouldn't abide by the rules. The only
> thing I noticed was a missing license paragraph about a few public
> domain images which I have added to debian/copyright. The paragraph
> about the Play* fonts could be removed because it appears you moved the
> font to a separate package, fonts-play. Otherwise the copyright file was
Thank you for the review, it is very much appreciated! Both font and P-D
corrections looks correct (I previously think I let the P-D stuff fall
through to the Files: * CC-BY-SA glob since they had been modified in
Red Eclipse), but I think this makes more sense on second thought.
I have pushed your changes to the git repos for redeclipse.
Anyone up for sponsoring redeclipse and redeclipse-data for this change?
> > I don't think this is an RC bug, since keeping it in nonfree is actually
> > the "safer" option (albeit a bad one should it be deemed unnecessary).
> No, this is, was and always will be RC. Fixing this issue during a
> regular upload was preferable but it seems there won't be another
> release in time before the freeze thus it was necessary to finally take
> Imagine the gnome-shell maintainers decided to put their package into
> non-free because they felt it is "safer". It would make all dependencies
> suddenly uninstallable. You simply can't make arbitrary decisions about
> the archive sections. Just because Red Eclipse is "just" a game makes
> the issue not smaller or less important.
Right, provided we now know that it is free it is indeed a quite bad bug
that it's in non-free. I was arguing "safe" based on the free-ness state
Again a big thanks for your review and patches Markus!
Martin Erik Werner <firstname.lastname@example.org>