Hello Frédéric, I appear to have missed your reply completely. Sorry. Here comes a late reply, thank you for all the feedback!
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Frédéric Brière <fbri...@fbriere.net> wrote: > 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. You make a valid point, and if you deem it better to create a new source package, I will change the packaging to reflect that. I still think that users of fceu should be upgraded to fceux, as it is the official successor to fceu (I had a source a while ago for this, I can't find it now, but I will attempt to find it), and this might be easier to achieve through building on the fceu source package. > (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.) A very valid point, I will fix this in my next version. > - 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. I will check whether this is possible. > - 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.) Thank you, I will fix all this! > - 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. I was actually unsure what the reason for the patch was, and this was my best guess. Will be fixed! > - 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?) I will take a look at dh, though I'm not familiar with it at the moment. The python dependency must be a relic of an earlier version of fceux which had a python front-end, it's obsolete now. > 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! > Thank you so much! Unfortunately, I will probably not be in time for wheezy... // Alexander -- 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/cam9mdpfznvh23aaduo7izx4nwzqm6f0co6x++a6zgy21l5e...@mail.gmail.com
