Hi Tobias, > (After your last mail I'm not sure if you are still working in the > package, if not please let us know to get the metadata right) I'm a little sad about the progress of the comments, but that's fine, if you want to fix the package for me, feel free. Of course, I will not say that I will never contribute to Debian again, because from time to time other packages I worked with will need to be updated in the future. :) > Nethertheless, as assaultcube-data is now in a limbo state, and needs an > upload so that the package can be actually be used, a review: > > d/changelog: > - debian revisions -3 was never uploaded, it cannot be marked as > uploaded to sid. So you have now two options > - join the entries for -3 and -4 and release them as -3 > - mark the entries for -3 as UNRELEASED. > (The first option is preferred.) > - the changelog entry for -4… There is no change on the "Suggests" > part? > > Regarding #935669… I don't thnk your update of the breaks/replaces stancas > will fix this. First, the bug is because the (non-free) package has been > uploaded source only, second, the breaks/replace's purpose is a > different one: > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#overwriting-files-in-other-packages > It was likely introduced because of that, but the version is so old that > it could be removed now. (As said, #935669 is a different issue) > To ensure that assaultcube is also updated, a simple Breaks: > assaultcube ( << 1.2.0.2) should do it, but the games packages I've checked > do not bother with that, so probably it can be left as it; It just needs > to be properly uploaded or marked as builddable on the buildds. This is my first package I would like to adopt and I had difficulty in "d/control", when an RC appeared in the package, I tried to fix the versions. I was afraid of receiving even greater criticism. I continued studying at this link: https://wiki.debian.org/PackageTransition > d/watch does not point to upsteam but to your own gitlab clone. > Please don't do that. You are NOT upstream and repacking is not a valid > reason to fork a project. (FTR, upstream is here: > https://github.com/assaultcube/AC) > This remark is also true for e.g. d/copyright and d/source/metadata) The latest version of upstream uses older SDLv1 libraries [0]. But it has an "experimental" branch where they worked with SDLv2 [1], where I mirrored my account where I made a 1.2.0.2.1 release [3]. [0] https://github.com/assaultcube/AC/releases/tag/v1.2.0.2 [1] https://github.com/assaultcube/AC/tree/experimental [2] https://gitlab.com/coringao/assaultcube I do not know can give problems if the upstream version is the old version. I can even make changes that you have guided me if it does not cause you problems. Cheers! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Carlos Donizete Froes [a.k.a coringao] ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Wiki: https://wiki.debian.org/coringao ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ GPG: 4096R/B638B780 ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀ 2157 630B D441 A775 BEFF D35F FA63 ADA6 B638 B780
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part