Re: Looking sponsor for my package - Osmose Emulator
2016-08-29 20:29 GMT+02:00 Carlos Donizete Froes <email@example.com>:
>>>> - Have you forked osmose-emulator? Asking, because the website in
>>>> "Homepage" is still at 0.96, while on your github you have released 1.0
>>>> I you have forked, you should update the homepage to the github, I
>>>> guess. Are you in contact with the original author, becasue then he may
>>>> want to update his homepage if he is consent of the
>>> I wonder about this too, where is the git history for this version
>>> 1.0? The lutris maintainer and I are maintaining a fork of osmose and
>>> have released version 0.9.97 (latest upstream was 0.9.96) with Qt5
>>> support and some bug fixes. Is there another new upstream that we
>>> missed, or did you just label your own version with some patches as
>>> I remember having wrote to you some months ago to mention this lutris
>>> fork that could be considered as the new upstream/maintenance version,
>>> unless somebody really interested in upstream development takes over
>>> (on the Lutris side we only intend to do maintenance releases, mostly
>>> to make it more distribution friendly).
>> Note that we tried to get in touch with the original developer back in
>> October 2015, but couldn't get a hold of him:
> Sorry, as found that this emulator, no one had in Debian working on it, just
> spent my free time to put it on Debian.
> I never looked at GitHub, because there are dozens of projects for this
I see only your fork , with no git history at all and just one
commit from 18 days ago; the lutris continuation fork , with a new
tagged release from April 2016, Qt5 support and unbundled minizip (so
moving to quazip is not particularly needed); and various forks
related to a RasPi port.
So I don't really see "dozens of projects" that would warrant the need
to create yet another fork. Before contributing the lutris fork, I
searched a lot for potential continuations of the upstream project and
found none other.
> After the emulator was for Debian decided to improve it.
I don't think it's the Debian policy to fork and maintain separately
projects which are already being maintained elsewhere, and especially
not for the sole benefit of Debian. If every distro maintainer started
forking all upstream projects for their own distro, the libre/open
source ecosystem would have a hard way providing interesting
Now, I haven't checked the source code of your fork and it might be
superior technically, but I find it sad that you blatantly ignored my
invitation months ago to have a look at the lutris fork and contribute
their to help maintain this emulator.
Hopefully you'll continue developing osmose further and we can soon
drop the lutris fork and use yours as new upstream...