Re: [RFR] templates://moon-buggy/moon-buggy.templates, moon-buggy-esd.templates
On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 11:55:24AM +0100, Justin B Rye wrote:
> Christian Perrier wrote:
> > Here is a proposed review (both new files and patch).
>
> Now we're in review mode I'll amend the Subject.
>
> > - The directory /var/lib/games will not be deleted (although the package
> > - maintainer thinks it should be deleted when empty).
> > + The /var/lib/games directory should probably be deleted later on.
>
> Was this about bug #109936/109960/109979/110058?
Yes
> If so, what's stopping you doing what you think you should? I don't
> see anybody in those bug-logs telling you you shouldn't delete it
> when empty; they only said you should check first. Oh, and the
> submitter of #109960 wondered whether maybe there might be a reason
> to leave it, but without going so far as to actually suggest one.
Well, its been a while. It should affect only people who upgraded from very
old versions of moon-buggy, since what, 8 years, it uses a different format,
a different location. Sometimes I wonder if it is still worth the effort
just in case somebody suddenly wants to upgrade a pre-2000 system to a
current moon-buggy version.
> > Template: moon-buggy-esd/sound_hardware
> > Type: boolean
> > _Description: Do you have sound hardware installed?
> > + The moon-buggy-esd package will only work properly if some sound
> > + hardware is available (see Bug #76059).
> > + .
> > + If you want to use moon-buggy without
> > + sound hardware, you should use the moon-buggy package.
>
> This whole thing looks pretty pointless - if this debconf question
> was going to exist anywhere I'd expect it to belong to esound.
> Still, that's all outside the jurisdiction of a template review.
> Christian's version looks fine.
There was a bug report, that moon-buggy would not install, since the user
tried to install it on a computer without soundhardware. You say I should
have bounced that bug to esound? Well, probably its a little late now...
> Are we touching the control file? If so, the only thing I notice
> there is the short description(s):
>
> Description: Drive a car across the moon
>
> That's a capitalised verb phrase; more DevRef6.2.2-compliant options
> include:
> Description: game where you drive a car across the moon
> Description: simple car-driving game set on the moon
> Description: lunar rover driving game
I think that text comes directly from upstream. But to become fully
compliant, I think I would pick the first suggestion.
Thanks,
Christian
Reply to: