Re: Bug#773632: RFS: pcsx2/1.2.1-783-g1f54bb7+dfsg-1 [ITP]
First of all thanks for the feedback!
>* 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
1.3.0~git20141221-1
>* In d/changelog, urgency should be "low" since it's a new package
>
>* Even though, technically, public domain software does not have a
>copyright holder, it is typical to put the author in this field in
>d/copyright anyway. Remove the phrase "Author's Note", and just leave
>the author's note in the "License" field. Because there are multiple
>different public domain declarations, you'll need to give them different
>names, e.g. public-domain-mark and public-domain-casper.
Commited to the alioth repo.
>* 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:
pcsx2/Docs/PCSX2_FAQ.doc
pcsx2/Docs/PCSX2_Readme.doc
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.
>* You don't need d/lintian-overrides when you already have
>d/source/lintian-overrides.
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.
>* Upon starting the program for the first time, there is a link labelled
>"Readme / FAQ (Offline/PDF)", which points to
>/usr/games/Docs/PCSX2_FAQ.pdf, which does not exist (due to Debian's FHS).
Oh, I never saw that link. I will patch it and send it upstream.
>* 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.
>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.
Once again, thanks for the feedfack!
Cheers,
Miguel
Reply to: