[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Re-review request/RFS for current packaging of Red Eclipse

On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 09:47 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Martin Erik Werner wrote:
> > Hello again, upstream has now released Red Eclipse 1.2 and hence this is
> > partly a RFS, partly a re-review request.
> ...
> > [1]
> > Is this motivation good enough for not using stand-alone Enet?
> Hmm, I don't have a good answer for that.

I'm hesitant, but I think I'll go with embedded Enet for now, given the
indications from upstream.

> > [4]
> > List of duplicates have been forwarded, but it's mostly a wontfix since
> > linking isn't as easy on windows.
> What about removing the dupes and only referring to the remaining files?

The given explanation was[0]:
> Some files are made available for modding purposes, the rest are
> impossible to symlink on all platforms. Distribution packagers are
> free to symlink files in individual packages, but this cannot be done
> on a project-wide scale.

The modding aspect is a reasonable argument for keeping the alternate
files separate (they could be different, but aren't currently), I could
symlink it all for Debian, and the gain would be about 1.3M, do you
think I should?

I have updated the packaging a bit since the re-review/RFS request, a
few typos, syntax, and style fixes. For each of the git repositories[1]
$ git log --since=debian/1.2_RFS
$ git diff debian/1.2_RFS
should list the changes, I have tagged the state of the repos as of this
email with "debian/1.2_RFS2".

Do you think these packages might be almost good to go? Would you be
willing to sponsor them at that point?

[0] http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/redeclipse/ticket/89
[1] (Once Alioth is up:)
Also re-uploaded to mentors:

Martin Erik Werner <martinerikwerner@gmail.com>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: