Bug#677517: minetest 0.4 unstable version

[Vincent Cheng]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Matthew Bekkema <mat8913ftw at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have made the changes that you recommended so I'll just comment on a
> couple of things below.
>
>> - Just wondering, does minetest 0.4.x actually still build with
>> libirrlicht-dev 1.7 in unstable? I tested the current version of
>> minetest in unstable when I uploaded irrlicht 1.8 to experimental, and
>> it ended up with a FTBFS (bug #693277). If minetest 0.4.x requires
>> irrlicht 1.8 rather than 1.7.x, please bump the build-depends on
>> libirrlicht-dev to (>= 1.8).
> Yes, minetest 0.4 builds correctly with both libirrlicht-dev 1.7 and
> 1.8

Ok, thanks for confirming.

>> - This is more just an opinion than anything else, but I don't really
>> think it's necessary to split the game data into minetest-game-minimal
>> and minetest-game-full. In debian/control, -minimal and -full are
>> always listed together in the package relationships (there's no
>> distinction between the two packages amongst the various relationships
>> between all the binary packages), and both packages are already quite
>> small in size. I just don't see any advantages to splitting them up
>> that offsets the added complexity to the source package.
> I had kept them in separate packages because upstream also keeps them
> separate but I suppose now that I actually think about it, putting
> them both in minetest-data is the more sensible idea.
>

Great, thanks for your work!

I see that you've kept remove-useless-depends.patch and gone ahead and
removed all those build-deps in d/control, so I assume that you know
what you're doing and aren't just blindly doing what dpkg-shlibdeps is
telling you to do. ;)

A pedantic note: You may (or may not) want to be more verbose in
debian/changelog. Generally, when doing a NMU upload it's safer to be
on the more verbose side; you should at least be as verbose as the
maintainer was in previous changelog entries.  e.g. adding a new
binary package is IMHO significant enough to warrant its own changelog
entry, and including a brief justification makes the ftpmasters' lives
easier (source packages uploaded that also add new binary packages
will end up taking a trip through the NEW queue). Also, modifying
build-depends, package relationships in debian/control should be
mentionned in the changelog. Anyways, this is more of a judgment call,
but being more verbose in your changelog will make it easier for
others to review your package.

A not-so-pedantic note: debian/copyright is still incomplete. e.g.:
 - src/shader.cpp: Copyright (C) 2012 Kahrl <kahrl at gmx.net>
 - src/guiPasswordChange.cpp: Copyright (C) 2011 Ciaran Gultnieks
<ciaran at ciarang.com>
 - src/filecache.cpp: Copyright (C) 2012 Jonathan Neuschäfer
<j.neuschaefer at gmx.net>

"licensecheck --copyright -r . | /usr/lib/cdbs/licensecheck2dep5 >
debian/copyright_new" should list the above, and a few more missing
copyright holders (compare with your current debian/copyright file).
It's less hassle for everyone involved if you get it right on the
first try, instead of ftpmasters rejecting your package due to an
incomplete debian/copyright (I speak from experience).

Regards,
Vincent