On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 22:15:56 -0700 Vincent Cheng <vincentc1208@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Karl Goetz <karl@kgoetz.id.au> wrote: > > > On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 12:08:39 +0100 > > Philip Taylor <excors@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Karl Goetz <karl@kgoetz.id.au> > > > wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 21:59:59 -0700 > > > > I've left all the CCs in; should they all be maintained, or can > > > > some be dropped? > > > now, since https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=628723 > > > gives a relatively stable modern version - just need to do a bit > > > of work to port the game to the latest version of the API. I can > > > probably get that done for the next alpha release of the game. > > > > Vincent, how do you feel about ITPing that too? > > Isn't spidermonkey already available in Debian? If possible, I would rather I don't know; i assumed it being bundled here meant it wasn't included. > avoid filing an ITP; rather, I'd prefer including libmozjs-dev as a > build dependency for 0 A.D (and work with the Debian Mozilla crew if > any changes have to be made to libmozjs in order for 0 A.D. to get > along with it). Please do. > > > > ./binaries/data/mods/public/public.zip > > > > - is this meant to be sitting around as a zip, or extracted by > > > > something at unpack? Could this be related to the lack of files > > > > in binaries/data/mods/ ? The copyright file says there is an > > > > art/ and an audio/ dir in there. > > > > > > It's meant to be installed as a zip (kind of like Quake's PK3 > > > files). The game's LICENSE.txt file refers to paths in SVN (where > > > they're not > > > > This is probably where the problem in debian/copyright comes from > > then. > > > > 0 A.D. runs fine with public.zip installed as a zip, so I'm > > assuming that > there's no need to unzip it prior to packaging and installing it. Do > I have to account for all the contents of the zip in > debian/copyright, and if so, how would I go about doing that? Don't know, hopefully someone else can clarify this. (you will have to take it into account, i just don't know how detailed you'll have to be) > > > > ./libraries/fcollada/src/FCollada/FColladaTest/Samples/Copyright.txt > > > > ./libraries/fcollada/src/FCollada/FColladaTest/Samples/Eagle.DAE > > > > - according to the Copyright file, Eagle.DAE is non-free. > > > > > > It'd be best for the game to not bundle a copy of FCollada. See > > > http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/562 - I don't know how long > > > it's likely to be before that's integrated and working, though. > > > > > > In the meantime, it's safe to delete those files from a release > > > (since the FCollada tests don't get run automatically; they're > > > only useful when people are developing FCollada itself). > > > > Any chance you could stop shipping the DAE file? otherwise debian > > will have to repack the tarball. > > thanks, > > kk > Actually, I have to repack the tarball anyways in order to have 0ad > and 0ad-data build from the same source package, although they're > offered as 2 separate source packages upstream. I'd question the logic of doing that, I suggest having separate source packages. How big would the two packages be? > Also, since fcollada tests aren't run automatically, should i simply > just remove those files from my source tarball (along with dbghelp)? eagle.dae? definitely remove it. the supporting code? up to you. > I don't want to have to modify the source tarball too much, but it is > simply much easier than trying to make sure that every potential > copyright/licensing issue is adressed. You have to make sure they are addressed :) thanks, kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature