Control: block -1 by 762228 On Fri, 2014-09-19 at 11:37 +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: > On 19.09.2014 07:32, Tobias Frost wrote: > > Control: owner -1 ! > > Control: tags -1 pending > > > > I'll try to review these packages over the weekend. > > (the package looks huge :) > > Hi Tobi! > > Thank you for your interest in UFO:AI. Indeed it's one of the more > complex and bigger games. :) > > > > (First thing that I saw -- but I don't know how's the best practice > > in pkg-games, so maybe this is more a question to the list: > > There is only one ITP filed, but three source packages (ufoai, -data, > > -maps and -music)? > > I presume you wanted to CC debian-devel-games. All e-mails to team > maintained packages are automatically forwarded to pkg-games-devel but > most of the discussion happens on debian-devel-games.
Thanks; indeed I mixed those two up. > > Should the ITP be cloned (and blocking each other) to be able > > to close a ITP or is it fine to ignore/override the lintian?) > > FWIW, I think we should follow Lintian's advice in this case and just > use one ITP bug to track the progress. > > https://lintian.debian.org/tags/new-package-should-close-itp-bug.html > > The three data packages are all part of the same game and they had to be > split because of size and functional reasons but they wouldn't make > sense without the ufoai source package. Well the lintian message says "split of an *existing* Debian package", which is not the case here. On the other side, they are different source packages, so there would be a point for an ITP. > > I'll probably also clone this RFS bug to have an per-package tracking of > > the review process. (unless this is a first-pass-package ;-)) > > Sure, it is. :P Challenge accepted* :) ** :( > Cheers, > > Markus > smiling, Tobi * I'd really love to improve my first-pass-yield, but this proved to be hard up to now. ** Just cloned the RFS for -music... (762228)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
