Bug#793057: ITP: godot -- open source MIT licensed game engine
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 06:58:02PM -0500, Kienan Stewart wrote: > I've uploaded an updated package to mentors.debian.net. I think it's > ready for more review/testing. I'm also looking for a sponsor if > anyone is willing. Hi! I've done a thorough review of the package. I haven't reviewed the upstream source code or attempted to rebuild the package myself. Here are the issues I could find by looking in the debian/ directory: 1. the version number is a little strange: "2.1.4-stable-1" I also believe it violates policy (§5.6.12: version), because there is a "debian revision" ("-1") so there can't be a dash in the upstream revision ("2.1.4-stable"). In general, I believe it is not permitted to have two dashes in version numbers: I'm surprised lintian let that through, maybe a bug there! https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#version i understand you may have chosen the version number to match the tarball name from upstream, but we should help upstream to do the right thing here. you can introduce them to semantic versioning, for example. you can also "mangle" the url in uscan to remove the "-stable" string, with something like "versionmangle=s/-stable//". 2. The VCS fields are present (good) but they point to the upstream repository (?) which is fine if you are the upstream, but in this case there is a "debian revision", which means this is not a native package, which I assume means you are not the upstream. The Vcs-* fields should point to a repository where we can find the *debian* packaging files, not the upstream repository. That is what the Homepage field is for. I would recommend you try out the new GitLab instance setup by the Debian project to host that repository, at https://salsa.debian.org/ 3. not sure the "this is my first package" note is necessary in the changelog :) 4. debhelper is now at version 11, you might want to take a look at the features (in the debhelper(7) manpage) and bump the compatibility level in debian/compat and the dependency in debian/control 5. purely cosmetic, but i like to align the dependencies in debian/control. instead of: Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 9), clang, scons, libx11-dev, libxinerama-dev, libxcursor-dev, libxrandr-dev, libfreetype6-dev, libpng-dev, libasound2-dev, libpulse-dev, zlib1g-dev, libgl1-mesa-dev, libstdc++-6-dev, libgcc-6-dev, libssl-dev, libglu1-mesa-dev, libwebp-dev, libtheora-dev, libvorbis-dev, libopus-dev, libopusfile-dev, libglew-dev, ca-certificates i find the following more readable: Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 9), clang, scons, libx11-dev, [...] this makes diffs easier to read for future changes and allows the packages to be sorted easily. 6. in the control file again, i would split the description in paragraphs. for example, this: Godot is an advanced, feature packed, multi-platform 2D and 3D game engine. This package allows games to be run from source or data-pack. should instead be: Godot is an advanced, feature packed, multi-platform 2D and 3D game engine. . This package allows games to be run from source or data-pack. also consider having *exactly* the same common description in all three packages and just change the last paragraph according to the package. 7. the manpage symlinks in debian/ are strange. why not just list "misc/dist/linux/godot.6" in godot2.manpages? i'm not sure how to setup manpage symlinks however, but i would suggest finding another package that does it and looking at *how* it does so. http://sources.debian.net has all the answers once you find the right package. :) 8. debian/godot.manpages probably does nothing and should be removed 9. now for the patches. the add-openssl-1.1 patch has some template stuff that should be removed. it should also explain why the patch is necessary (e.g. why isn't it in the upstream release? will it ever be?) 10. the manpage patch has similar issues: is it from upstream? why isn't it in the release? 11. the change-ca-cert-sources-path has the above, plus: isn't it possible to use the #thirdparty pattern to do such a replacement instead of using a patch? it looks like this is *designed* to be configurable from the outside 12. the remove-thirdparty-ca-certificates patch is a big wth for me... if we change the path, why do we need to remove the certs? what's that thing with the symlink? 13. the remove-unneeded-thirdparty-libraries patch is just scary. 32MB is just plain wrong. if you want to remove code, you need to repackage the tarball. it's nasty and weird, but basically, you rebuild the original tarball without all that crap, period. you also try to convince upstream to do
Bug#793057: ITP: godot -- open source MIT licensed game engine
Hallo Kienan, you should also claim ownership of the ITP package (is it still owned by Bruno, but he said that he is ok that someone taking over) Thanks!
Bug#793057: ITP: godot -- open source MIT licensed game engine
I've uploaded an updated package to mentors.debian.net. I think it's ready for more review/testing. I'm also looking for a sponsor if anyone is willing. Thanks, Kienan signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#793057: ITP: godot -- open source MIT licensed game engine
Hi, I've had a bit of free time to work on this and I've uploaded another version (based on 2.1.4) to mentors.debian.net : https://mentors.debian.net/package/godot Thank both Francesco and Rémi for your advice in preceeding comments! I've made a number of changes, including having 3 packages as suggested by Rémi. There are still a couple of small warnings to clear up, in particular I'd like to tackle the debug symbols warning and get the build to use the hardening flags next. I also haven't cherry-picked the desktop/appdata files from upstream yet. All the changes I made are also available here: https://github.com/kienanstewart/godot/tree/2.1.4-stable-debian Thanks, Kienan signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#793057: ITP: godot -- open source MIT licensed game engine
On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 21:43:43 -0400 Kienan Stewart wrote: > I've had a first pass at creating a package for godot : > https://mentors.debian.net/package/godot [...] > Once I find some time to clear up the lintian warnings, I'll do > the RFS procedure [...] Hello Kienan, I am a Debian user and contributor interested in seeing Godot packaged for Debian. I am afraid I won't have time to actively helping you out in the packaging effort, but I would like to throw some suggestions in... I read your three comments on the above-cited mentors.d.o page. As far as the possible-gpl-code-linked-with-openssl Lintian warning is concerned, I guess it's really caused by the debian/* licensing. The general suggestion here is to license debian/* files not only in a DFSG-free manner, but also at least as permissively as the upstream software package. Since Godot is mainly released under the terms of the Expat (MIT) license, I would recommend you to re-license the debian/* files under those same terms. Moreover, I noticed that the upstream github repository includes a file (named COPYRIGHT.txt) which (except for an initial comment) seems to be formatted following the machine readable debian/copyright file specification. That file could be a good starting point to build the actual debian/copyright file for the Debian package, of course without forgetting to check against the actual package content! I think that thirdparty/* projects should be purged from the orig.tar archive (after making them unused, obviously!). If you manage to do so, then you should not need to document their licensing status. You should just document that they have been removed by repacking the orig.tar archive... Regarding the godot2 / godot3 split: if the two are installable side by side, with no conflict whatsoever, and they are mutually incompatible, then I think they should be packaged separately as godot2 and godot3, with distinct executable binaries. But I would first concentrate on one version only (the stable one, or maybe the alpha one, assuming it is usable enough: you get to decide...). Regarding the man pages, I would recommend you report upstream that they are missing. If upstream developers do not consider this to be a bug, I would suggest you to write the man pages on the basis of upstream documentation and to contribute them back upstream (under the same licensing terms as Godot). Please see https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#manual-pages That's all, I hope my comments may be of some help. Thank you for your effort to package Godot for Debian! Looking forward to seeing the package uploaded to unstable and ready to be tested. Bye! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpsIiN3qaNFd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#793057: ITP: godot -- open source MIT licensed game engine
I've had a first pass at creating a package for godot : https://mentors.debian.net/package/godot There are some lintian warnings to clear up, and I was wondering a bit about the following * builds only support amd64 at the moment * how to handle packaging godot 3.0 when it's available (an alpha is currently out) Once I find some time to clear up the lintian warnings, I'll do the RFS procedure following the mentor's guide and https://wiki.debian.org/Games/Sponsors/Queue signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#793057: ITP: godot -- open source MIT licensed game engine
I'm also interested in helping to package godot for debian. With the current stable of godot (2.1.3-stable), there's an incompatibility with the SSL version shipped in stretch (upstream issue: https://github.com/godotengine/godot/issues/8624) I was able to build with: scons platform=x11 target=release_debug bits=64 use_llvm=yes builtin_openssl=yes but I'm not sure if this will cause problems Thanks, Kienan signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#793057: ITP: godot -- open source MIT licensed game engine
Hello, I'm sorry for the late reply. I'm currently not actively working on this, after several tries I always blocked on some point. Please take over if you want. If you need help let me know, maybe I can help you. Thank you. Regards, Bruno On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 3:33 PM, eylul wrote: > Hi, > I would like to try to help out with this, if possible. Is anyone > actively working on this package? > > Thanks >
Bug#793057: ITP: godot -- open source MIT licensed game engine
Hi, I would like to try to help out with this, if possible. Is anyone actively working on this package? Thanks
Bug#793057: ITP: godot -- open source MIT licensed game engine
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 23:29:14 +0200, Bruno Ramos wrote: > Description : open source MIT licensed game engine > That's not a terribly useful short description. Only the last two words belong there, IMO. The "open source" bit is kind of implied by it being in Debian, and the exact license is what debian/copyright is for. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#793057: ITP: godot -- open source MIT licensed game engine
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Bruno Ramos * Package name: godot Version : 1.1-stable Upstream Author : Juan Linietsky, Ariel Manzur * URL : http://www.godotengine.org * License : MIT Programming Lang: C++ Description : open source MIT licensed game engine Godot is an advanced, feature packed, multi-platform 2D and 3D game engine. It provides a huge set of common tools, so you can just focus on making your game without reinventing the wheel. Godot has been in development and used in-house by OKAM as early as 2001. In February of 2014 the source code for Godot was released to the public on GitHub under the MIT License. On 15 December 2014 Godot reached 1.0, first Stable release. - Package to be maintained as part of the Debian Games team (http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-games/godot.git/) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150720212914.12299.67533.report...@debian.lan