Re: [RFR] templates://cardstories/{python-cardstories.templates} (Section:)
Loic Dachary wrote:
>> Okay, so it's written in JavaScript and Python... but upstream call it
>> plain "cardstories". Python policy says Python develpers don't need
>> to add a Python prefix unless the Python package contains a Python
>> module that other Python programs are expected to use (in which case
>> it should probably be split into a server package and a library
>> package). And while I could imagine it going under "Section: web",
>> the obvious place people will look for it is under "games".
>
> I'm not sure what is right. Most people won't actually install the game
> to play it, because they would be alone and it's a multiplayer game.
I don't follow why that would stop them wanting to install it - it's
not as if multiplayer online games were a rarity. And if I don't want
to use the networked mode where it sends out invitations, didn't you
say that it could be played by a bunch of people accessing a single
machine?
Still, if it's really not intended to function as a game, the package
description needs to introduce it as a toy for webapp developers which
happens to have a token "game" attached as a demo - or whatever would
be an accurate summary.
> Someone willing to run a server is going to install the game on a remote
> machine and then invite friends over to play. Or even propose it to the
> general public. Most probably this person will also tweak the game to
> fit into a larger web site, embeding the game in a div and / or making
> use of the pythhon web service with a completly different client.
If it's packaged so that non-developers can just apt-get install it,
let it pull in the appropriate dependencies, answer its debconf
question, and then play it for fun, then it belongs in "Section:
games". If it isn't, then you need to tell us a lot more about what
people are expected to use it for and how.
> I thought python-cardstories made sense because it is going to be
> installed by people who will most likely use it as a toolkit.
Instead of as a game? If they're only looking for Python code they
can modify, I don't understand why they'd bother with a Debian
binary package when they could just grab it from the upstream VCS.
And although my Python-fu is weak, as far as I understand Python
policy you should only call a package python-something if it contains
a file called something.py.
> But I also acknowledge that it's a web component and it could be in
> Section: web. I think putting it in Section: games would mislead people
> into thinking they can play it standalone. This is also why I did not
> try to add it as a link in the desktop menus.
What do you mean by "standalone"? The dependencies for a package
ought to pull in (or at least suggest) everything I'd need to use the
package - maybe with a README explaining how to set it up for "hotseat
mode".
By the way, the "Sources" link does now lead to a file containing some
sources, though (a) it's only the Python files, without the JavaScript
UI, or a copy of the license, or anything like that, and (b) it rather
confusingly downloads as "agpl" (zipped but with no .zip extension).
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: