Re: Package suggestions

2017-07-03 Thread rugk
Ah, thanks. Indeed. It's a bit old, but nice… :) Thanks for packaging it. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

2017-07-03 Thread rugk
Aha, so the discussion is about the "(not so) free" level packs already. Did not know that, indeed. If so, everything is all right. And in any case, you can still package it without these level packs. :) ___ devel mailing list --

Re: Package suggestions

2017-07-03 Thread rugk
Oh, nice. In this case I'll take everything back… I just got the impression, because of the prices list on the main website (https://askbot.com/plans/) and on askbot.com I did not find a link to the repo… ___ devel mailing list --

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-25 Thread Andrea Musuruane
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 11:11 PM, rugk wrote: > FYI, the game's name I could not remember was "Which way is up". See > https://packages.debian.org/stretch/whichwayisup. > Nice game. I didn't know it. I packaged it and it's available for review:

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-24 Thread Artur Iwicki
I think you're misunderstanding the discussion; the issue is not whether it's okay to package the game at all - as noted by Matthew and Zbigniew, being able to use copyrighted levels and such is okay; see: Fedora packs Doom ports. The current blocker is that the level packs (CCLPs) use a

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-24 Thread rugk
> (Game engines which are open source and which work with redistributable but > non-free content are a different special case.) Actually that's the case here, as explained in another post. It does *not require* the non-FLOSS binaries. ___ devel

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-24 Thread rugk
FYI, the game's name I could not remember was "Which way is up". See https://packages.debian.org/stretch/whichwayisup. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-24 Thread rugk
Actually, BTW, one basic assumption you do is wrong: The game can be played completely without the maybe-proprietary binary. There are FLOSS levels inside/bundled IIRC. Playing the original levels is just an "extra feature" and if you don't use it, you don't use it. Not allowing the software,

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-17 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 07:47:48PM +0200, Christian Dersch wrote: > On 06/17/2017 07:41 PM, Christian Dersch wrote: > > On 06/17/2017 07:33 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 10:45:54AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > >>> Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote: > >>> > Am

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-17 Thread Christian Dersch
On 06/17/2017 07:41 PM, Christian Dersch wrote: > On 06/17/2017 07:33 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 10:45:54AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: >>> Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote: >>> Am 16.06.2017 um 22:52 schrieb Artur Iwicki: > I took a shot at packaging the

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-17 Thread Christian Dersch
On 06/17/2017 07:33 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 10:45:54AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: >> Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote: >> >>> Am 16.06.2017 um 22:52 schrieb Artur Iwicki: I took a shot at packaging the game and it went rather smoothly. The only issue I

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-17 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 10:45:54AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote: > > > Am 16.06.2017 um 22:52 schrieb Artur Iwicki: > >> I took a shot at packaging the game and it went rather smoothly. The only > >> issue I have is that the level packs don't really have a licence; the

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-17 Thread Rex Dieter
Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote: > Am 16.06.2017 um 22:52 schrieb Artur Iwicki: >> I took a shot at packaging the game and it went rather smoothly. The only >> issue I have is that the level packs don't really have a licence; the >> only copyright info is a line at the end of the readme, stating:

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-17 Thread Rex Dieter
Artur Iwicki wrote: > I took a shot at packaging the game and it went rather smoothly. The only > issue I have is that the level packs don't really have a licence; the only > copyright info is a line at the end of the readme, stating: "This package > [...] may be distributed freely, as long as

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-17 Thread Artur Iwicki
To anyone interested: I've finished packaging the game and would be grateful for a review. I can do a review swap in exchange. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462412 ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-17 Thread Björn 'besser82' Esser
Am 16.06.2017 um 22:52 schrieb Artur Iwicki: I took a shot at packaging the game and it went rather smoothly. The only issue I have is that the level packs don't really have a licence; the only copyright info is a line at the end of the readme, stating: "This package [...] may be distributed

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-16 Thread Artur Iwicki
I took a shot at packaging the game and it went rather smoothly. The only issue I have is that the level packs don't really have a licence; the only copyright info is a line at the end of the readme, stating: "This package [...] may be distributed freely, as long as its contents are left intact

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-15 Thread Matthew Miller
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:18:13PM -, rugk wrote: > > wonder what Legal's opinion on that would be. > > It worked in Debian. ;) > Basically they did not package the original game files. I think they > are even not included in the upstream project. They just state: "Do > you have a file of

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-15 Thread Neal Gompa
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 7:28 PM, rugk wrote: > Personally, I'd like such a system very much. It would make it possible for > regular users to participate… > And such participation can be the first step to becoming deeper involved into > the project and becoming a

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-15 Thread rugk
Personally, I'd like such a system very much. It would make it possible for regular users to participate… And such participation can be the first step to becoming deeper involved into the project and becoming a packager, e.g. I don't know phpback, but uservoice is a popular software. It is

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-15 Thread rugk
> I searched for tworld, is that the "Tile World" game recreating "Chip's > Challenge"? Yes. > wonder what Legal's opinion on that would be. It worked in Debian. ;) Basically they did not package the original game files. I think they are even not included in the upstream project. They just

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-15 Thread Adam Williamson
On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 10:49 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:41:15AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > It'd be *nice* if there would be > > > a maintained list, although I very much agree that it shouldn't be > > > presented as something which a pool of developers are

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-15 Thread Matthew Miller
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:41:15AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > It'd be *nice* if there would be > > a maintained list, although I very much agree that it shouldn't be > > presented as something which a pool of developers are hovering over. > It'd be nice, but I'd argue that a list that is

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-15 Thread Ben Cotton
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > It'd be *nice* if there would be > a maintained list, although I very much agree that it shouldn't be > presented as something which a pool of developers are hovering over. It'd be nice, but I'd argue that a list

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-15 Thread Matthew Miller
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 04:55:08PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > There's a wiki page for this, but frankly I'd suggest it's not a high > priority because we just don't have a pool of people hanging around > looking for stuff to package; the existing page is huge and contains > things that have

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-15 Thread Petr Pisar
On 2017-06-14, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 01:22 +0200, rugk wrote: >> Finally I'm giving a list of some very useful pieces of software I am >> partially missing after switching from Debian. > > There's a wiki page for this The wiki cannnot be

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-15 Thread Artur Iwicki
I have a bit of personal interest in Tox, so I took a look. qTox cannot be included in the official repo because of dependency on ffmpeg. The dependency list for uTox looks like it could be worked with (the filter_audio lib looks the worst to me). I searched for tworld, is that the "Tile

Re: Package suggestions

2017-06-14 Thread Adam Williamson
On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 01:22 +0200, rugk wrote: > Hi, > I've been looking into how to suggest packages for inclusion in Fedora > for some time. See > https://ask.fedoraproject.org/en/question/106042/where-do-i-request-new-packages-to-be-added-to-the-fedora-repos/. > > Finally I'm giving a list

Package suggestions

2017-06-14 Thread rugk
Hi, I've been looking into how to suggest packages for inclusion in Fedora for some time. See https://ask.fedoraproject.org/en/question/106042/where-do-i-request-new-packages-to-be-added-to-the-fedora-repos/. Finally I'm giving a list of some very useful pieces of software I am partially