Mail from the Ubuntu mame MOTU

[Cesare Falco]

Hello Jordi, hello all!

Basically, get-orig-source now fetches the two zips, and converts to a
> mame.orig.tar.bz2 and a mame.orig-mess.tar.bz2, being careful to remove
> the conflicting files that we mentioned before (the differences are just
> line ending).
>

this is my approach too.
The source tree is saved in a temp directory for later cleaning, Mame is
built first, then incremental source is added and it's Mess turn.


> With this, we would need to again do massive work on debian/copyright
> before being ready to reintroduce the mess binary.
>
unfortunately, yes.

I've asked the former upstream maintainer of SDLMame, who is member of
both Mame and Mess Teams. The claim is, *all* code from both projects
is now released under the Mame licence and copyright is held by the
Mame Team for main source and the Mess Team for the additional code.

We can trust him of course, but peeking at the files things look different.
I guess they are still in the process of updating per-file notes, but I
think
we should be as much specific as possible in debian/copyright.


> > > The package for mess has not been published yet:
> > > * it lacks docs and detailed copyright infos
> > > * mess-tools shares chdman with mame-tools, I'm stuck between
> > >    *   making mess-tools depend on mame-tool
>
> Do the tools differ? If so, are they compatible between them? If they are
> the same tool, or compatible, I guess the easiest is to handle them via
> update-alternatives, with a higher priority for the MAME version.
>
they are the very same, built from the same source with the same name.
Could this be managed with update-alternatives?


>
> > >    *   turning both to meta packages and breaking them in a
> > >        set of packages (mame-chdman, mame-ldplayer,
> > >        mess-whatever...) which the meta packages will then
> > >        depend on (recommended IMHO)
>
> Ugh, this would be way too many packages.
>
8 more IIRC.
If update-alternatives can't do, I'd rather prefer this to "direct"
dependecy between *-tools packages, not so neat IMHO.


> Great work! I'm looking forward for you to join the team!
>

I've (probably... ;) ) managed to register to Alioth and asked for
membership in the Debian Games group. This according to Manu
should grant me access to the git repository. In the meantime, is it
permitted to post my debian/rules file as an attachment to the list?

Just to put it right, I'm just a contributor, not a MOTU. I still need
sponsorship to upload to the official repository. Difference is subtle,
but I don't want to steal any merit from the mentors who spend their
time to revise my package. :)

Cesare.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-games-devel/attachments/20110512/2362debd/attachment.htm>