Hi again, [...] > >Thanks a lot for updating this package. Yet the new non-repacking leaves some > >doubts to me: > > > >- "Don't repack anymore." is a nice hint that something has changed, but yet > >it > > left me to find this out myself via the debdiff. > >- Using "repacknot1" as version appears to be a cruel hack. Ideally we'd > >have a > > new upstream version that could be packaged, but if that doesn't happen > > soonish, we'll have to live with that hack. (Introducing an epoch doesn't > > seem > > like a better solution either...) > >- Why do server binaries belong to a "data" package? Isn't that just a hack > >to > > avoid a new source package? > >- The original license appears to disallow re-packaging/splitting, hence > >there > > must be some exclusive exception provided to Debian. This is, however, not > > detailed in the copyright file. > > > >Best regards, > >Michael > > > > Hello. > > - True, I've changed it to read "Upstream tarball no longer > repacked; binaries not removed since used", would this be reasonably > verbose? >
Ok, cool, that sounds more helpful. > - Yeah, 1.1.0.5 is in the works, but when is very uncertain (maybe > this year...). > I discussed the renaming on IRC (mentors/games) and it seemed like > this was the most reasonable solution. > Ok, thanks a lot for the info. > - Would splitting it into two source packages be better, it seems a > tad unnecessary? > Upstream distributes one "AC" package with precompiled binaries and > data for "compile-less" usage (which Debian uses only for data > currently), and an AC-source package, which Debian uses to create > the packages with the binaries. > Since the binaries comes in the upstream tarball which Debian calls > "-data" I guessed it would be best to use this source package > as-is.. > In this case I do agree that splitting is probably too much of a hassle. However, the name still doesn't seem appropriate. Wouldn't it be good to rename the source package? What about moving to assaultcube-nonfree for the source package name? (Here I'm assuming that the assaultcube-data package was non-free before, is that correct?) Renaming the source package requires the additional step of requesting removal of the previous source package from the archives, but that's doable. > - Noted (complicates the current deletion of the binaries as well, I > guess), I've sent the question of special permission for the Debian > project to the main project people, we'll see where that discussion > leads. > Given your above information about the assaultcube binary package I'm not sure I understand whether the new "repacknot" package isn't actually license-compliant as it is unmodified!? Best regards, Michael
pgpcorRiCnrGk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
