On Sun, 2014-07-27 at 15:30 +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: > On 27.07.2014 10:23, Martin Erik Werner wrote: > [...] > > As far as I see it, it is still uncertain whether redeclipse-data > > belonging in main is a correct assumption, a re-review of the content > > would be needed, from the previous discussion I think it is indeed > > *probable* that it would be found fit for main. > > I have reviewed redeclipse and redeclipse-data file-by-file. The patches > are now attached to this bug report. The licenses are DFSG-free and > there is not a single file that wouldn't abide by the rules. The only > thing I noticed was a missing license paragraph about a few public > domain images which I have added to debian/copyright. The paragraph > about the Play* fonts could be removed because it appears you moved the > font to a separate package, fonts-play. Otherwise the copyright file was > accurate.
Thank you for the review, it is very much appreciated! Both font and P-D corrections looks correct (I previously think I let the P-D stuff fall through to the Files: * CC-BY-SA glob since they had been modified in Red Eclipse), but I think this makes more sense on second thought. I have pushed your changes to the git repos for redeclipse. Anyone up for sponsoring redeclipse and redeclipse-data for this change? > > I don't think this is an RC bug, since keeping it in nonfree is actually > > the "safer" option (albeit a bad one should it be deemed unnecessary). > > No, this is, was and always will be RC. Fixing this issue during a > regular upload was preferable but it seems there won't be another > release in time before the freeze thus it was necessary to finally take > action. > > Imagine the gnome-shell maintainers decided to put their package into > non-free because they felt it is "safer". It would make all dependencies > suddenly uninstallable. You simply can't make arbitrary decisions about > the archive sections. Just because Red Eclipse is "just" a game makes > the issue not smaller or less important. Right, provided we now know that it is free it is indeed a quite bad bug that it's in non-free. I was arguing "safe" based on the free-ness state being previously-determined-nonfree-now-unknown. Again a big thanks for your review and patches Markus! -- Martin Erik Werner <martinerikwer...@gmail.com> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
