Bug#945588: RFS: lutris/0.5.4-1 -- open source gaming platform for GNU/Linux
> I'm not a DD and can't sponsor packages, but I hope my feedback can be helpful
> for you.
Doesn't matter, thanks for the review!
> I see Lutris bundles python-distro. This is available in Debian, so the
> package should use it rather than installing a bundled copy. Debian's
> Winetricks should be used also.
Can you give me some for information about python-distro? Meaning where it is in Lutris? Maybe I'll make an upstream PR, but I'm short on time till end of this month.
I'm also aware of the winetricks problem and already did an PR do add the option to use system winetricks. I think Lutris should either provide a full winetricks, or remove its own (isn't used by default anyway afaik), but depends on weather the upstream author is interested in that and is commited to frequently updated the shipped winetricks. Hasn't been the case before I did it lately.
> Since Winetricks is in contrib, depending or recommending it means that Lutris
> needs to go to contrib or non-free also.
Well kinda not, since winetricks in Debian suggests unrar-nonfree,
while Lutris doesn't. Anyway, Lutris shouldn't really ship winetricks by default imho.
> Lutris's description mentions Linux. Does it use any Linux-specific
> functionality, or should it build and work on other kenels like the Hurd and
> kFreeBSD also? If so the Architecture: any is fine.
Didn't remember if I tried all or any, but it didn't work. I'll try it again once I'll start packing lutris again, and will do an upstream PR to remove the GNU/Linux mentioning, but I won't change the description from upstream.
> I see from the TODO and your GitHub issue that you're aware of the copyright
> problems, but as the package currently stands it's not suitable even for non-
> free.
Yeah I already thought they would be highly problematic and I didn't invest the time yet to read everything and compare to the DFSG, also I don't even have enough knowledge to do so.
> That's problematic and I don't see any 'explicit authorization,' so I've
> reported this issue upstream at https://github.com/lutris/lutris/issues/2573
> and hope it will be taken care of.
Yeah I could see that this won't work out. Also I don't think it's necessary, we can just create a DFSG-compliant package and strip all the svgs out. Why all of them? Because even the CC0-1.0 svgs have some logos which could cause copyright problems (like the steam logo for example). What has to be done for this though is some upstream work to not cause an error if the svgs are missing, but show a blank logo instead. Don't know if it even throws an error right now but don't have the time to really test it rn.
> With respect to the Debian-specific parts, the packaging looks good and I hope
> my feedback helps you tackle your last few challenges.
Thanks again! I hope I'll get a cleaner DFSG-compliant package once the next version is released, and hopefully someone will sponsor it then. Tbh I wasn't really that active to find a sponsor, since 5.4 released without my big upstream change to improve packaging and was be a mess to review. Anyway, if you want to keep track I'll create a new todo-list on https://github.com/lutris/lutris/issues/2553
Stephan
Reply to: