On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Karl Goetz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 12:08:39 +0100 > Philip Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Karl Goetz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 21:59:59 -0700 > > > I've left all the CCs in; should they all be maintained, or can > > > some be dropped? > > > > > > [...] > > > ./binaries/data/tests/collada/sphere.pmd > > > - its a data file, and i can't see a free software tool to open > > > this. > > > > It's the game's custom format for mesh data > > (http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/PMD_File_Format). > > > > (Old models only exist in .pmd format. New models exist in editable > > Collada (.dae) format in SVN, and the game automatically converts and > > caches as .pmd for more efficient loading. That particular > > tests/collada/sphere.pmd file is just used for tests of the cache > > loading code - the other .pmd files are inside public.zip.) > > So it can be modified by the game/related tools? > > > > ./libraries/spidermonkey-tip/src/js.mdp > > > - its a data file, and i can't see a free software tool to open > > > this. > > > > It'd be best for the game to not bundle a copy of SpiderMonkey (so > > this becomes somebody else's problem). I think that should be possible > > This would be best. > > > now, since https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=628723 gives a > > relatively stable modern version - just need to do a bit of work to > > port the game to the latest version of the API. I can probably get > > that done for the next alpha release of the game. > > Vincent, how do you feel about ITPing that too? > > Isn't spidermonkey already available in Debian? If possible, I would rather avoid filing an ITP; rather, I'd prefer including libmozjs-dev as a build dependency for 0 A.D (and work with the Debian Mozilla crew if any changes have to be made to libmozjs in order for 0 A.D. to get along with it). > > > ./binaries/data/tools/fontbuilder/fonts/* > > > - this doesn't appear in d/copyright; because they're not installed > > > from here? > > > - i note that there is a comment in there to this effect "The > > > Converted... fonts were produced by opening the originals in > > > FontForge 20090923, changing the names, and exporting as > > > TrueType.". problem for debian? > > > > Those files aren't used in the build or installation at all, they're > > just used by an offline tool that converts them to PNGs (so it was > > convenient to keep the original font files in SVN and they're not > > explicitly excluded from the release tarballs). > > Are these the original? the comment implies they are not. > > > > ./binaries/data/mods/public/public.zip > > > - is this meant to be sitting around as a zip, or extracted by > > > something at unpack? Could this be related to the lack of files in > > > binaries/data/mods/ ? The copyright file says there is an art/ and > > > an audio/ dir in there. > > > > It's meant to be installed as a zip (kind of like Quake's PK3 files). > > The game's LICENSE.txt file refers to paths in SVN (where they're not > > This is probably where the problem in debian/copyright comes from then. > > 0 A.D. runs fine with public.zip installed as a zip, so I'm assuming that there's no need to unzip it prior to packaging and installing it. Do I have to account for all the contents of the zip in debian/copyright, and if so, how would I go about doing that? > > in a zip). The release-building process finds all the files in > > binaries/data/mods/public/, does some format conversions (PNG -> DDS > > etc), then saves everything into public.zip. Any suggestions on how to > > state the copyright status more clearly? > > Not sure; mentors, is there a best way for this? > > > > ./libraries/fcollada/src/FCollada/FColladaTest/Samples/Copyright.txt > > > ./libraries/fcollada/src/FCollada/FColladaTest/Samples/Eagle.DAE > > > - according to the Copyright file, Eagle.DAE is non-free. > > > > It'd be best for the game to not bundle a copy of FCollada. See > > http://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/562 - I don't know how long it's > > likely to be before that's integrated and working, though. > > > > In the meantime, it's safe to delete those files from a release (since > > the FCollada tests don't get run automatically; they're only useful > > when people are developing FCollada itself). > > Any chance you could stop shipping the DAE file? otherwise debian will > have to repack the tarball. > thanks, > kk > > > Actually, I have to repack the tarball anyways in order to have 0ad and 0ad-data build from the same source package, although they're offered as 2 separate source packages upstream. Also, since fcollada tests aren't run automatically, should i simply just remove those files from my source tarball (along with dbghelp)? I don't want to have to modify the source tarball too much, but it is simply much easier than trying to make sure that every potential copyright/licensing issue is adressed. - Vincent
