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

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



Hello,
Given that I have not received any response to my previous request, and
questions, I'm re-sending this.

On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 14:35 +0100, Martin Erik Werner wrote:
> 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.
> 
[a]
> 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.
> 
[b]
> 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?
> 
[c]
> [0] http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/redeclipse/ticket/89
> [1] (Once Alioth is up:)
>  http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-games/cube2font.git
>  http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-games/redeclipse.git
>  http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-games/redeclipse-data.git
> Also re-uploaded to mentors:
> http://mentors.debian.net/package/cube2font
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cube2font/cube2font_1.2-1.dsc
> http://mentors.debian.net/package/redeclipse
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/contrib/r/redeclipse/redeclipse_1.2-1.dsc
> http://mentors.debian.net/package/redeclipse-data
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/non-free/r/redeclipse-data/redeclipse-data_1.2-1.dsc
> 

I'd be grateful if someone could have a look at my questions, and if you
think the state of the packaging is good, please upload it.

Index:
[a] Embedded Enet
[b] Symlink dupes in Debian packaging?
[c] Packaging links

Thanks :)

-- 
Martin Erik Werner <martinerikwerner@gmail.com>

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


Reply to: