On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Matthew Bekkema <[email protected]> wrote: > I have made the changes that you recommended so I'll just comment on a > couple of things below. > >> - Just wondering, does minetest 0.4.x actually still build with >> libirrlicht-dev 1.7 in unstable? I tested the current version of >> minetest in unstable when I uploaded irrlicht 1.8 to experimental, and >> it ended up with a FTBFS (bug #693277). If minetest 0.4.x requires >> irrlicht 1.8 rather than 1.7.x, please bump the build-depends on >> libirrlicht-dev to (>= 1.8). > Yes, minetest 0.4 builds correctly with both libirrlicht-dev 1.7 and > 1.8
Ok, thanks for confirming. >> - This is more just an opinion than anything else, but I don't really >> think it's necessary to split the game data into minetest-game-minimal >> and minetest-game-full. In debian/control, -minimal and -full are >> always listed together in the package relationships (there's no >> distinction between the two packages amongst the various relationships >> between all the binary packages), and both packages are already quite >> small in size. I just don't see any advantages to splitting them up >> that offsets the added complexity to the source package. > I had kept them in separate packages because upstream also keeps them > separate but I suppose now that I actually think about it, putting > them both in minetest-data is the more sensible idea. > Great, thanks for your work! I see that you've kept remove-useless-depends.patch and gone ahead and removed all those build-deps in d/control, so I assume that you know what you're doing and aren't just blindly doing what dpkg-shlibdeps is telling you to do. ;) A pedantic note: You may (or may not) want to be more verbose in debian/changelog. Generally, when doing a NMU upload it's safer to be on the more verbose side; you should at least be as verbose as the maintainer was in previous changelog entries. e.g. adding a new binary package is IMHO significant enough to warrant its own changelog entry, and including a brief justification makes the ftpmasters' lives easier (source packages uploaded that also add new binary packages will end up taking a trip through the NEW queue). Also, modifying build-depends, package relationships in debian/control should be mentionned in the changelog. Anyways, this is more of a judgment call, but being more verbose in your changelog will make it easier for others to review your package. A not-so-pedantic note: debian/copyright is still incomplete. e.g.: - src/shader.cpp: Copyright (C) 2012 Kahrl <[email protected]> - src/guiPasswordChange.cpp: Copyright (C) 2011 Ciaran Gultnieks <[email protected]> - src/filecache.cpp: Copyright (C) 2012 Jonathan Neuschäfer <[email protected]> "licensecheck --copyright -r . | /usr/lib/cdbs/licensecheck2dep5 > debian/copyright_new" should list the above, and a few more missing copyright holders (compare with your current debian/copyright file). It's less hassle for everyone involved if you get it right on the first try, instead of ftpmasters rejecting your package due to an incomplete debian/copyright (I speak from experience). Regards, Vincent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
