On Sun, 06 May 2012 20:01:27 +0200, Alexander Toresson wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 2.1.5-1 of the package > "fceu".
What a coincidence, I was just about to send you an email with various comments on your packaging effort. I might as well post them here, in case anybody else wants to chime in. > It is the official successor to the long dead > FCEU project; therefore I include a transition package and build upon > the fceu source package. This leads to my main comment: Is "fceu" the appropriate name for the source package? Both upstream and your main binary package agree on "fceux", which is a bit confusing. And AFAIK, fceu and fceux differ on some points, such as configuration files locations (~/.fceultra vs. ~/.fceux), or behavior (<Esc> will exit fceu, but not fceux, which may be confusing in full-screen mode), so I wonder if this really qualifies as a drop-in replacement. (It would be far from the first time in Debian that a successor of package A gets uploaded a package B. I'm just too lazy to point to an example at the moment. <g>) Here are my other (less interesting, and more nitpicky) comments: - It is customary (but not documented, see bug #499167) to add "+dfsg" or a similar suffix to the upstream version when repackaging the tarball. The dev.ref. (6.7.8.2) also recommends using packagename-upstream-version.orig as the tarball's top directory. (It also suggests documenting the repackaging in debian/copyright, but not everybody agrees on this location, so feel free to keep using README.Debian.) - Incidentally, do you think you could convince upstream to clean up before shipping a tarball? Not that you wouldn't need to repackage anyway, but it would spare you some lintian warnings and overrides. - It would probably be a good idea to provide a menu entry (under Applications/Emulators), and maybe a .desktop file as well. - Your debian directory contains a stray stamp-patched file. - The Bug: URL in patches/enable-building-with-gcc-4.6.2-and-newer points to a different bug report. I think you meant aid=3496056. (I only stumbled upon this because I was curious to read about upstream's rationale for this patch. See next point.) - Despite the patch's description, this has nothing to do with GCC (compilation will fail with older versions as well), but is due to gzFile changing from a void* typedef to a struct in zlib 1.2.5.2. - This is purely a matter of personal taste, but have you thought about switching to dh? All the cool kids are doing it, and the resulting debian/rules is much more enjoyable. (Incidentally, any idea why yours currently pulls in python.mk?) Finally, I'd like to thank you for your time and effort in packaging fceux. Debian sorely lacks a good NES emulator, so your work is quite appreciated. (It certainly came in handy a month ago, when I got the urge to play Dragon Warrior following Google's latest April Fools. <g>) Here's hoping you find a mentor -- and with any luck, in time for wheezy! -- < Overfiend> whew. < Overfiend> I really need to get some sleep. < Overfiend> but it sure was fun talking guitars, politics, and lesbians. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jo71bi$it3$1...@dough.gmane.org
