Re: Bug#762228: RFS: ufoai-music review
On 2014-09-20 13:02, Markus Koschany wrote:
> On 20.09.2014 09:57, Tobias Frost wrote:
>> My reasoning is, that because of every data package has its own
>> orig.tar, they need to be crafted in a way to so that they will
>> be -- individually looked at -- reach Debian quality requirements.
To expand on this, try to see this from a contributor's POV.
Say I use ufoai (I do, actually ;-) ), and say I find a bug in the
ufoai-music package. A common way to contribute would `apt-get source
ufoai-music`, and the produce a patch, or debdiff, or whatever.
Say the Security Team wants to upload a security fix for an issue with
ufoai, then they should be able to do so by just getting its source.
Note that these are purely hypothetical examples that are probably not
relevant to ufoai (in total), they serve just to emphasize why it's
important to not just look at a set of (source) packages as a whole, but
also invidually.
> I still don't see why the current copyright file does not meet Debian's
> quality requirements. Instead of one huge 900 MB -data package, the game
> data was simply split into three different source packages. This makes
> it much easier to fix bugs without having to upload all data files every
> time.
>
> I would like to stress: The source packages are not independent of each
> other, they belong together. It is due to mere technical reasons that
> the -data was split.
I believe that splitting the package was a very good idea, if only to
relieve the buildds (one arch-independent package took almost a day to
build on my Core i7-4770).
However, if you're going to split, then it has to be done "right", as
Tobias emphasized.
> In my opinion we are in full compliance with
> Debian's Policy because
>
> - we state in d/copyright that the game data was split due to technical
> reasons
> - we use a reproducible and convenient way to determine all copyright
> information.
Here's an example for where I see problems with the split: the script to
reproduce the copyright information for ufoai-music is in ufoai, so just
getting ufoai-music's source alone does not help me here.
> - the copyright file is machine-readable and every file in each source
> package is covered by an license paragraph in debian/copyright.
>
> Thus the whole copyright file is accurate.
When, in source package $source, you are claiming copyright for a
non-existing file, then that information -- minor issue as it may be --
is most certainly not accurate.
Again, I think you are doing the correct thing with splitting, but I
believe the split is not clean yet.
Regards,
Christian
Reply to: