* Package name : openbve Version : 1.6.0.0 Upstream Author : Christopher Lees <leezer3@gmail.com> * URL : http://openbve-project.net/ * License : Public Domain Programming Lang: C# Description : Realistic 3D Train / Railway Simulator openBVE is a railway train-driving simulator with an emphasis on in-cab driving, realistic physics, braking system and train safety system modelling. Technically, the simulator handles detailed per-car simulation of the brake systems, friction, air resistance, toppling and more. In trains supplied with 3D cabs, the driving experience is augmented with forces that shake the driver's simulated body upon acceleration and braking, as well as through curves. Compared to other rail-based simulators, openBVE has its main focus on realism---not necessarily on user-friendliness. There may be a need to study operational manuals for the routes and trains chosen, rather than merely memorising a few keystrokes. The simulator is designed to be backwards-compatible with existing 'BVE Trainsim' routes and cab interiors, allowing a wide range of existing scenarios to be loaded by a single-program (BVE1, BVE2, BVE4 and extended openBVE route formats). OpenBVE uses OpenGL for 3D graphics rendering, OpenAL for positional surround sound, and is written in the C# language. Note that binary train extension plugins are not currently supported on Linux/Unix, because these would require Win32 emulation. ------------------------------------------- openBVE was previously part of the Debian / Ubuntu repositories, but was unfortunately removed due to unresolved bugs, and lack of upstream development. I became the primary developer / upstream maintainer approximately 4 years ago, and have been involved in the wider BVE community for 20+ years. We've been in contact with both the previous Debian / Ubuntu maintainers (sladen - Paul Sladen & directhex - Jo Shields), and we're agreed that in priciple, we would like to bring openBVE back into the repositories. With this in mind, we have an offer from Henrich to sponsor the potential new package. Our release cycle tends to be whenever we have a major feature, so something variable from 1-3 months. The full source-code is available from http://github.com/leezer3/OpenBVE and *should* build a compliant Debian package from stock. (N.B. There is also a makefile, which as one of it's options will build a debian package, but this isn't fully standards compliant) Thanks.
control: retitle -1 ITP: openbve -- Realistic 3D Train / Railway Simulator Hi, With a quick look for source (not rebuild yet), I'd note some comments. * Its master branch contains debian directory, but I'd prefer to remove it because it's better to be hosted on salsa.debian.org as package source if it'll be included into Debian. If it would be in salsa, Debian developers can update it without any restrictions as package. And as a debian source package, it has a history (of course :) Now upstream repo doesn't contain it. Maybe it's better that I'll create it on salsa. Doubt, debian/copyright says different. And, you should use "lintian" tool to check its package quality. Anyway, continue...----------------- * debian/control This is not Ubuntu, there's no such repository named "universe", just remove it. You should not add same value with Maintainer to Uploaders, in this case, just Maintainer is enough. Use fullname for Maintainer, not handle name (without any restriction (maybe legal one, etc). Too old! As https://trends.debian.net/ says debhelper 9 is **lowest** version now we can accept. We can use debhelper 12, please use it if there's no restrictions. Same here, comply to newest Debian policy version 4.3.0 No, your site is HTTPS enabled! use https for that. And there's no Recommends/Suggests package but I think there's data package, right? If so, you should add it (or provide as well).----------------- * debian/NEWS.Debian I doubt whether it says about changes in package behavior.----------------- * debian/README.source It should be cleaned up.----------------- * debian/README.Debian It is described with upstream's view, not suitable for it. It should be described in descriptions (debian/control). Not necessary. Maybe this part can be used.----------------- * debian/changelog Just like this, don't forget to close this bug! * New upstream release 1.6.0 (Closes: #927278) * debian/control - update Homepage: field----------------- * debian/debhelper-build-stamp, debhelper-build-stamp Those are just garbage, should not be added to repo.----------------- * debian/credits.md * debian/changelog.md Not package relevant, should move to upstream source?----------------- * debian/openbve.menu Obsolete, remove it.----------------- * debian/openbve.desktop This should be moved to upstream since it's not Debian specific.----------------- * debian/openbve{,-objectviewer,-routeviewer}.6 Same above. And it seems that URL is old one.----------------- * debian/openbve.post{inst,rm}.debhelper Garbage.----------------- * debian/rules Needs to be updated, but later...----------------- * debian/source/format You should put it as "3.0 (quilt)"----------------- * debian/copyright It should be updated, and consider it's license deeply if you can.
Here it is: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/openbve
Thank-you for the reply and your help. I've never tried creating a package to Debian standards before (and I'm primarily Windows based...), so please forgive any further issues or stupid questions! I'll try and address your most pertinant points in order. debian/copyright are what was previously agreed with Debian / Ubuntu. Paul Sladen can probably fill in some of the details of that discussion, as I was not party to that. Some recent discussion on our end here: https://github.com/leezer3/OpenBVE/issues/305 TLDR: As you probably realise, the concept of Public Domain is a somewhat nebulous one. The public domain status is the legacy of the original project founder / primary coder Michèle Boucquemont, and whilst as a project we'd ideally in many ways like to re-licence to BSD (and I believe have the explicit consent of all parties other than herself for this change), going down this route is likely to be problematic due to her attitude towards conventional licencing and the fact that she's been missing / uncontactable for ~7 years. If Debian have an official view on whether it's possible for us to re-licence something deliberately declared as Public Domain to BSD without specific consent I'd be interested to hear it. ----------------- Will sort out, shouldn't be a problem with these. And there's no Recommends/Suggests package but I think there's data That depends on what Debian want / require. Ideally speaking, we'd like to merge the main and data packages into a single one- This would probably make maintenance a lot easier. The old debian package structure consisted of the following packages: Required: *openbve - *Main executable. *openbve-data *- Various UI data, language files etc. Optional: * bve-route-cross-city-south *- Initial demo route * bve-train-br-class-323 *- Initial demo train * bve-train-br-class-323-3dcab* - 3D cab for demo train The data files make up ~4mb compressed so approximately half the total package size of 8mb. Of this, the language files change rapidly, but a lot of the other data is static. The route / train data is not specifically required, but I believe it was thought to be a good idea to provide an initial content 'pack' for first time users. I believe that the only file remaining in Debian is *openbve-data* , which would either require removal or a complete update. ----------------- These all came from the original package, and have had minor updating nothing more as a first pass. Looking into README.Debian in detail, I'd say the current content is largely irrelevant; A lot of work has gone into making things work under any combination of circumstances. Similarly, from a cleanup perspective most of README.source can probably be removed as out of date. I'd probably leave in the stuff about licencing, data files and upstream documentation. If you've got a link to the correct spec for these files, I can work on revising a bit to suit current needs. These were cleaned up / updated / reformatted versions of files from the original package structure. If they're not required, they can be deleted; The changelog is on Github and the main site, and there is already a credits file in the main source. Christopher Lees
So, I've had more of a look at things this week. I've addressed some of the points you raised in the package metadata on our repository, but these obviously aren't on Salsa. In order to do anything in there, I believe you would need to give me write access to the repository you've setup. (I'm now registered on Salsa with this email / username leezer3-guest) I would also appreciate any clarification you can provide on the points raised in my previous message . Many thanks.
Hi, Done, please check it. # And if you don't have any rights on any repository, you can send MR