Bug#668505: dwarf fortress debian package
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Scott Howard <showard314@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) Changelog is confusing, there are multiple entries claiming upload
> to unstable that has never been uploaded. The ITP bug is closed very
> low on the list. Also, this is labeled as 0.8.0-3, but this is the
> first upload to Debian. For the sake of clarity in the Debian archive,
> I think you should reduce the debian/changelog to a single entry:
> 0.8.0-1, "First packaging for Debian (Closes: #658887)". (or close
> which ever of the ITP bugs you want to close)
I think that for some reasons I had to put "unstable", but I'm not
sure what the correct value is for a new package (NEW or UNRELEASED
?).
As I was maintaining the package for a while, I made multiple releases
to mentors.debian.net, and I think it was expecting increasing version
numbers or something like that.
I will restart the ChangeLog from scratch anyway.
> 2) It appears that several of the packages depends on non-free data,
> but it also appears that the engine can run free content. Is the
> package usable without any content, or does it depend on non-free
> content? (i.e., if a user downloads the package, will they be able to
> do something with it "out of the box")? I'm trying to see if this
> should be in "main" or "contrib." Looking at the upstream website, it
> appears that the package should be "contrib."
There is a small demo game, but I don't even know if it is playable. I
would say that contrib is sensible.
> 3) Lintian report:
> I: gemrb: desktop-entry-lacks-keywords-entry
> usr/share/applications/gemrb.desktop
> I: libgemrb: hardening-no-fortify-functions usr/lib/gemrb/plugins/2DAImporter.so
> I: libgemrb: hardening-no-fortify-functions usr/lib/gemrb/plugins/BAMImporter.so
> I: libgemrb: hardening-no-fortify-functions usr/lib/gemrb/plugins/CREImporter.so
> W: libgemrb: postinst-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig
> W: libgemrb: postrm-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig
>
> the first 4 are minor and can be fixed if you'd like to whenever you
> get a chance.
I will.
> The last two should be overridden for being a bug in debhelper.
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=205142
That's what I thought, I will add the override.
> 4) the debian/control VCS-Git and VCS don't match the one you gave me
> (http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-games/gemrb.git;a=summary)
Noted.
> 5) I was a little uneasy about the vvc files, they are binary blobs so
> I was worried about where they came from (copyright and license), but
> I found:
> http://gemrb.org/iesdp/file_formats/ie_formats/vvc_v1.htm
> I think it is ok, they seem to be from gemrb and not taken from
> closed-source game content. You don't need to do anything about them.
I don't think that the package provide anything non-free. For the
files in the demo folder, there seem to be mostly GPL and coming from
GemRB exclusively.
However I have seen that some of them are not clearly licensed. We can
drop this part of the package if this is an issue, as they are not
very useful, except as a starting point for game developpers.
Cheers,
--
Beren
Reply to: