On 18.08.2016 21:51, Christian Mauduit wrote: > Glad to here someone is working on integrating LW6 in Debian, this is > super cool ! > > I'm going to have a look at your 3 patches, some of them, if not all of > them, could make their way upstream, I mean, there's nothing in them (I > need to check but that's my first intuition) that could harm non-Debian > users, in general. > > Oh, no, I just have a question regarding the ./debian directory "being > upstream". I, for one, find it convenient because it enables my Jenkins > daemon (the CI tool I use) to generate debs automatically, so that I can > check that "most" packaging issues are fine before even trying to bother > real Debian maintainers. And it enables users to "dpkg -i" even if it's > not yet on Debian repos. Should I remove the ./debian dir from my repo, > I would need to do some extra work and introduce new workarounds... I guess it's completely fine to include the debian dir in your repo. As a package maintainer I only care about the actual source tarball anyway. As soon as the package is officially part of Debian we recommend to use the official packages and then your "upstream" debian dir wouldn't be needed anymore but until then it doesn't hurt to keep it. > I note your wishlist for SDL2. I'll take a look at it, SDL2 has been > around for so long now, that it should be quite straightforward. In > theory ;) That would be really cool because sometime in a hopefully far, far away future SDL1 will be removed from Debian and if we want to keep the old SDL1 games we need to port them to SDL2. That's why I have decided for myself to package new games only if they are future-proof. ;) > Then, I do think the LW5 and LW6 packages (liquidwar and liquidwar6) > should co-exist as long as LW5 (the old liquidwar) is still runnable. > Probably, this is related to liballegro4, the day Allegro 4 dies, then > Liquid War 5 dies to. Until then, I see no reason to remove it. It's > like apple juice and orange juice. Both are juices. But you wouldn't > stop drinking one just because the other flavor is here. That's true and I think liquidwar and liquidwar6 are different enough to justify the inclusion of another source package instead of simply upgrading the existing package. > Thanks and have a nice day, Cheers, Markus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature