Re: Bug#773632: RFS: pcsx2/1.2.1-783-g1f54bb7+dfsg-1 [ITP]
>> * There's a newer upstream version
> The package contains the HEAD of the master branch from a few hours
> ago since upstream just committed some new changes. There is
> technically no newer version. What upstream branched/tagged as 1.2.2
> is 1.2.1 + a cherry pick of 1 commit but due to the migration from svn
> to git the branching is kind of funny currently. Git describe will
> give 1.2.1-783-since there are 783 commits since the last tag. I could
> stop using git describe and change it to something like
Okay, sorry, I was mistaken. Keep the version numbering as is.
>> * Unfortunately, the FTP masters require PDF files to be distributed
>> with source code (https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html). You
>> can ask upstream if they still have it, but for now I think it would be
>> easier just to not package the pdf documentation.
> The source is there in:
> Since you failed to find it I guess the ftpmaster could fail to find
> it too. So I documented it in Readme.source just to be safe.
Thanks, I should have seen that.
>> * You don't need d/lintian-overrides when you already have
> d/source/lintian-overrides is for the source
> d/lintian-overrides is for the 1st binary in the control file.
> Not sure what you mean by this.
Again, my mistake. Don't worry about it. :)
>> * It seems that, to make use of this package, a non-free BIOS is needed.
>> I don't have one, so I can't really do any more testing. Also, is it
>> possible to make much use of this package without a non-free BIOS? If
>> not, the package may have to go into non-free, instead of main.
> I'm not sure about this since it's something that any user that wants
> to use the software must already own.. The same argument could be made
> for DVD movies or the game disk themselves then.
Debian policy 2.2.1 requires that "None of the packages in the main
archive area require software outside of that area to function."
The argument couldn't be made for the game disk. After all, maybe you
just want to run NetBSD on it?
In any case, I might be wrong on this. I'm CC-ing Debian-legal to see
what they think.
>> I can tell that you've gone to a LOT of work to package this. Please
>> don't let this last obstacle (the package review) discourage you. Thank
>> you, and I hope to soon see your package in Debian!
> I probably spent too much time in the copyright due to missing headers
> but upstream slowly added them but it's still a mess tbh.
Oh well, it should be fine. d/copyright is generally a best attempt sort
of thing anyway.