Debian/Ubuntu builds

[GoogleCodeExporter]

What are the major things which your patch changes / adds?
I added a debian folder that enables to build native Debian/Ubuntu/Linux Mint 
packages

Against what version did you make your patch?
I made the patch with rev824 and the command svn diff

Please provide any additional information below.
I setup a PPA in this direction: 
https://launchpad.net/~adrian-arroyocalle/+archive/freerct

Original issue reported on code.google.com by adrian.a...@gmail.com on 14 Aug 2013 at 4:02

Attachments:

• debian-builds.patch

[GoogleCodeExporter]

No idea what a PPA is. I added that URL to the BuildProgram page, is that the 
best solution?

Original comment by Alberth2...@gmail.com on 17 Aug 2013 at 1:46

[GoogleCodeExporter]

You can add the debian folder (in the patch) and all the people with Debian 
based OS can build FreeRCT with: dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot and install it 
with: sudo dpkg -i <DEB File>
Automatically resolve dependencies. 

Original comment by adrian.a...@gmail.com on 17 Aug 2013 at 1:57

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I browsed through your files, and found a few things that should be changed imho

- In the copyright file you are listed as upstream author.
  I haven't checked lately, but I was under the impression that the number of accepted patches written by you is not very high.

- In the same way, you don't have copyright of FreeRCT.

- The program does not have the "GPL 2 or newer" license.

- In the rules file, you seem to make a full copy of the graphics directory, 
which is not needed. The set graphics/rcd/*.rcd files generated during the 
build suffices.

Original comment by Alberth2...@gmail.com on 17 Aug 2013 at 7:20

• Added labels: Type-Enhancement

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi, I'm doing some changes, but I have a question. Who owns the copyright of 
the project?

Original comment by adrian.a...@gmail.com on 20 Aug 2013 at 9:49

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I've done some changes in the debian files. Here is the patch.

Original comment by adrian.a...@gmail.com on 20 Aug 2013 at 12:17

Attachments:

• debian-build.patch

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Like any open source project, everybody that has made changes in the project 
has copyright over his/her own lines of code.
I am thus one of the owners, but others have committed changes as well, and I 
have committed patches contributed by others. I don't have a list of owners 
however.
Listing just me seems wrong to me.

I don't know how Debian handles this situation, but since it is normal with an 
open source project, I would think they have a guide line for it.

Also, you did not fix the license. The project has Gnu public license 2, and 
that's it. We don't want to give the option to use a newer version of the 
license.

Original comment by Alberth2...@gmail.com on 23 Aug 2013 at 6:19

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I've done a search and some packages like Linux and OpenTTD comes with: 
Copyright (C) YEARS <Main Author> and many others
Other projects has a full list of owners like Simutrans or Hedgewars. So I put 
the owners of the project in the Google Code People page.

Original comment by adrian.a...@gmail.com on 25 Aug 2013 at 10:19

Attachments:

• debian-build.patch

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Thanks for your investigations.

I prefer the "and others" addition.
Also, I changed the license of the program, as I seem unable to get the message 
across what I want.
Last but not least, the font path you set doesn't exist at debian systems, I am 
told, which is a bit weird for a set debian build files, so I modified that too.

Attached are my proposed changes.

Last but not least, I tried loading the format definition, but your URL 
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=file&rev=135  doesn't 
exist. Is there a better reference to it?

Original comment by Alberth2...@gmail.com on 1 Sep 2013 at 10:04

Attachments:

• proposed_changes.patch

[GoogleCodeExporter]

At the moment the Debian Packaging guide shows this URL. You can check it here: 
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/dreq.en.html#copyright
Your changes are good. I think that you can now apply the changes and commit.

Original comment by adrian.a...@gmail.com on 1 Sep 2013 at 10:10

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Added, thanks for your contribution. Hopefully it will be useful to many.

Original comment by Alberth2...@gmail.com on 1 Sep 2013 at 10:33

• Changed state: Fixed

[GoogleCodeExporter]

+override_dh_auto_configure:
+
+ #mkdir -p ${CURDIR}/debian/azpazeta
+ #cp -rv build/* ${CURDIR}/debian/azpazeta/
+ #dh_auto_configure

This part seems to override the configure step to do nothing? If this is 
needed, please add a comment explaining why. In any case, please remove the 
commented out lines, they're only confusing.

+override_dh_auto_build:
+ make

Why are these lines needed? dh_auto_build should try the "make" command 
automatically (and if it misdetects the build system in use, I think you should 
fix this by telling the dh command instead of overriding individual commands 
like this).

I wonder if it makes sense to install into /opt. If this is a proper, 
dpkg-managed .deb, why not install into /usr/bin (etc.) directly?

+   cp debian/freerct.cfg ${CURDIR}/debian/freerct/opt/freerct/bin/
This seems wrong (config files don't belong in bin), but I suspect this should 
be fixed in FreeRCT instead.

The latest patch still has a GPL2+ license, which should be GPL2 AFAICS.

+Format-Specification: 
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/dep/web/deps/dep5.mdwn?op=file&rev=135
This url doesn't work. http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/#format-field also 
suggests the field should be named "Format" instead?

+medium-path = /usr/share/fonts/truetype/ubuntu-font-family/Ubuntu-R.ttf
Is this font available on all Debian systems (I'd expect not). Perhaps you 
should use a common font and/or depend on the font package providing the 
selected font? Is it even needed to select a different font in the first place? 
Aren't the defaults ok?

Other than these comments, the patch looks ok to me.

Original comment by matthijskooijman@gmail.com on 2 Sep 2013 at 3:58