OpenBVE perhaps return to Debian again...!?

[ginga81]

Relative with #261.

Today, via Twitter, a Debian Developer henrich is conversation to me.
https://twitter.com/henrich

He say that if you mails to Debian's WNPP, he becomes to the sponser.
Please send WNPP to submit@bugs.debian.org.

If recoverly to debian, you(Mr.leeser3) can continue to registration to debian directly.

At https://www.clear-code.com/blog/2014/3/7.html, the WNPP's prototype mail foramat is written.

Additionally, he checked your OpenBVE's .deb, and he advice to me.
He say that some files are still not ready for registration.
For example, debian/copyright.
The deficiency files should to attach based from bellow.
http://snapshot.debian.org/package/openbve/1.4.0.10-3/

Additionally, perhaps you are not use official deb packaging tool.
If you use official deb creating tool, it is so smart.

I will continue to contact to developper henrich.
If you sent to email to submit@bugs.debian.org, please announce to me.
I tweet to him.

[leezer3]

Interesting!

I agree debian/copyright is missing, will add that back again.
The last conversation I had with @directhex (Previous package maintainer) was over email about 2 years ago.

I've got no real experience with Debian packaging, and the current package is based upon a combination of the original scripts and some tweaking of my own.
IIRC Debian would want the compatibility data separated into a second package.

She was relatively happy to chat, but nothing happened, and I think she had a lot of other stuff on her plate too.

[ginga81]

fetch from the http://snapshot.debian.org/package/openbve/1.4.0.10-3/, some more deficiency files.

He said that he will be a sponsor if you prepares and emails the necessary documents and the appropriate deb file.
He said to me that it is busy now to the next debian release, so he said to me that every few days please mention.
So please email me after preparation.

[directhex]

The last active package maintainer in Debian was actually @sladen, I just had some oversight as part of my general control of .NET in Debian

[sladen]

@leezer3 @ginga81: would encourage working with the packaging as-is:

• https://github.com/sladen/openbve/

was a careful import of released .zip snapshots into revision control, until Michelle moved on.

Is there a clear new upstream, from which to make new releases?

[leezer3]

This repository is the upstream these days.
I don't believe there has been any other fork / continuation released with any working development or new features :)

The release branch and the point releases should provide the snapshots you're after I think.

The history should be contiguous from the last source Michelle released although I'd have to check that; the packaging and other build scripts have been later additions on the top, as well as a lot of (ongoing) reorganisation.

Essentially, I think what this needs is a clear list of points Debian would like us to address?

[leezer3]

OK, so I've had a quick look back into the commits and the linked repo from @sladen

The commit tree for this repo starts here:
7416862

I appear to have started from a base of Michelle's last released ZIP source (1.4.3.0), and done some work before importing this into the GIT repo.
This contained the full set of developer tools, data etc.
After that, the history is contiguous.

Sladen has a set of repositories which are split by program, so that each of the tools lives in it's own repository.
I'm not necessarily sure this is the 'correct' method of doing things in a game of this nature, especially as there is a massive amount of commonality between the different tools, and none of them have any real use outside the game. (N.B. One of the ongoing jobs is merging the duplicate code between the tools), either way it's two different / disparate approaches.
Either way, Debian appears never to have distributed the tools, so I'm not sure how relevant this is.

---

Thoughts / TODO List:

• Sort out the missing files from the Debian package. Should just be able to pull these from the main Debian tree.
• Create a separate package for the menu / language / compatibility data? I'm not entirely clear what the original Debian motivation for this was, but presumably something to do with reducing download sizes on an upgrade? Separating the default route / train I can absolutely understand, but I wouldn't have done this personally :)
• We distribute / require various C# libraries / wrappers ( CS-Script, NAudio, NUniversalCharDet. OpenTK, SharpCompress, Ionic.Zlib), which are not available as default Debian imports. All of these have a suitably permissive licence, but I'm not entirely clear how exactly Debian would want these presented?

[sladen]

@leezer3, it's 10 years ago, so things may be a little hazy.

• openbve-data is cross architecture: consisting of images (which mostly never changed), documentation, and translations (which tended(?) to change quite rapidly, because translations would also be contributed directly, outside of the main source releases)
• openbve is the executable and immediately required configuration programs. ie. everything that has to be compiled at-the-same-time for things to work. Being CLR/CLI this is theoretically cross architecture; but I did have loading of i386 plugin DLLs working, and that code it was not cross-architecture.

For the content side, we had three examples (all thanks to Anthony):

• bve-plugin-uktrainsys, a plugin usable across various routes
• bve-route-cross-city-south, an example route
• bve-train-br-class-323, an example train
• bve-train-br-class-323-3dcab, an example 3D train interior, depending/extending bve-train-br-class-323

The route/train/cab/plugins are not OpenBVE-specific per-se, they are in BVE-CSV fileformat and could also be used with eg. the original BVE Trainsim non-free freeware program + tools. Hence the bve- prefix.

It would be great to bring the tools into the main repository, and I'm sure Debian/Ubuntu would be very happy to follow whatever Upstream does! ;-)

[leezer3]

No trouble.

I've been in this community since 1997 or there abouts, and have seen the entire gamut of BVE.....
Started developing this rather by accident, but now things have rather started to get a lot more complex!

Main Program:

I've actually done some playing with cross-architecture proxying for i386 plugins:
#230

This works acceptably(ish), but it's not code I was ever happy with.
Being honest, it's something which needs someone with considerably more understanding of cross-architecture would need to look into properly again.
We're also still limited to openGL 1.1 & Display Lists, which somewhat rules out most non x86 architectures.

Data:

The data included in the current releases has grown somewhat since the original days. At present, it's this:

• Windows dependancy stub installers (irrelevant to Debian packaging)
• Menu images / data etc- These get added to occasionally to support new features, but are generally largely static.
• Translations- A lot of these are out of date unfortunately; Where new strings have been added, these have been inserted in English. Getting contributions to this is hard, but might change if we get back into Debian....
• An open-source copy of various objects from the Uchibo route by Mackoy- These are called by a lot of early BVE2 / BVE4 Japanese content, and the original is not easily available / installable for users of modern non-Japanese Windows.
• Documentation (?) - A copy of this is included in the main source repo, but not with the downloads.

At 5mb compressed, whether a separate package is worth the trouble is something Debian would have to decide.
Distributing a deb from our site, I made the decision that supplying a single file was just easier, although obviously being in a repo means that it just gets pulled in as a dependancy :)

Tools:

My instinct would be to include with the main program, and use executable names prefixed with openBVE as follows:

openbve-objectviewer
openbve-routeviewer
openbve-traineditor
openbve-carxmlconvertor

etc.

An alternative would be to add a Developer Tools button / dialog to the main menu, which would avoid adding anything to the path?

Content:

I'm happy to provide 3 more fully cross-platform locos & assorted consists ( GWR 81xx, GWR Manor, BR Class 52 ) in public domain / BSD-3 if we feel that is a good idea. None of these work correctly on the original BVE trainsim however. (n.b. openBVE introduced both the 3D cab and train exteriors, so neither of these work per-se with the original BVE Trainsim)

Route-wise is somewhat more complex, and I don't think there's anything easily available that could be added.

As opposed to Michelle's original managed content system. a relatively early implementation was a basic package manager. This isn't anything particularly special, just reads a metadata XML from a zip, and allows installation / removal etc.
I don't know quite how this will relate to the Debian content packages, but it was considered important to have a format which automatically packaged / installed content, and was cross-platform.

Other:

The issue of the licence mess Michelle left us with pops up every once in a while:
#305

We have agreement from all the non-trivial contributors to this repository that a move to BSD is acceptable in principle, and TBQH the current licence probably would allow us to do this anyways.
I'd be interested if you have comments or preferences in this regards.

[leezer3]

OK, have done rather a lot of messing around with the generated deb.

This is now clean of all red lintian warnings, other than the lack of a changelog.
I haven't currently got a good way to pipe this into the requisite file, so it would probably have to be created manually by whoever builds the debian package.

However, there are still some flaws:

• A bunch of the stuff in the assets directory has permissions which Lintian thinks is incorrect. This can probably be sorted easily enough with a permissions commit in GIT. (Just how important is this anyway?)
• Some of the built code seems to be getting again 'incorrect' permissions. I'm tempted to just recursively chmod all exe files to 0755 and anything else to 0644 as a post-build step, but it'd probably be 'better' to fix this in the makefile.
• The small usertool we use to add the LBA header is getting packaged. Harmless, but should be squashed after it's used.

This really needs someone familiar with Debian packaging to take a look now though.
I can read Lintian warnings just fine, but I don't know enough about the fine details of what's happening.

[directhex]

Okay, so, taking a look at the packaging metadata, I feel it would be much easier to maintain in the longer term by using some newer conventions - right now it's using format version 5 from 2005 (https://github.com/sladen/openbve/blob/debian/debian/compat) and 75% of that file would go away with version 7 from 2008. https://salsa.debian.org/dotnet-team/xsddiagram/blob/master/debian/rules is an example of a Debhelper 7 rules file for a project built entirely from sln/csproj - and half of that file is a custom rule for downloading the .tar.gz.

Some of the automagic things in dh7 would likely help you

[directhex]

Sorry, I should have given a bit more context as to what's happening.

%:
	dh $@ --with cli

Means "for every Debian packaging rule, just do whatever the dh command wants to do, but add the .NET-specific commands defined in /usr/share/perl5/Debian/Debhelper/Sequence/cli.pm"

Then for every command dh wants to shell out to, you can choose to override it by adding a override_dh_foo: target, e.g. override_dh_auto_build (which detects things like autotools or cmake or meson) to instead call xbuild on the sln. You'd throw away everything in the existing rules and leave something like:

#!/usr/bin/make -f
export DH_VERBOSE=15
BUILDDIRS = openBVE/OpenBve openBVE/OpenBveApi \
 openBVE/OpenBveAts \
 openBVE/Sound.Flac openBVE/Sound.RiffWave \
 openBVE/Texture.Ace openBVE/Texture.BmpGifJpegPngTiff
TARGET = $(CURDIR)/debian/openbve
EXEC_TARGET = $(TARGET)/usr/lib/openbve
EXEC_PLUGIN_TARGET = $(EXEC_TARGET)/Plugins
#DEBUG_CONFIGURATION=Debug
DEBUG_CONFIGURATION=Release

override_dh_auto_build:
	for builddir in $(BUILDDIRS); do \
	  (cd $$builddir && xbuild /p:Configuration=$(DEBUG_CONFIGURATION) *.csproj) || exit 1; \
	done

override_dh_auto_clean:
	for builddir in $(BUILDDIRS); do \
	  (cd $$builddir && xbuild /t:Clean *.csproj); \
	  rm -rf $$builddir/bin $$builddir/obj; \
	done

override_dh_auto_install
	#do most of this stuff in debian/install, maybe with dh-exec
	lynx -dump -nolist $(CURDIR)/debian/changelog.html > $(TARGET)/usr/share/doc/openbve/changelog

override_dh_clideps:
	dh_clideps -d -r --exclude-moduleref=AtsPluginProxy.dll

%:
	dh $@ --with cli

[leezer3]

Thanks!

The current in-tree script we've got (and which I've been modifiying today) actually builds the solution (Uses mcs , not xbuild) before copying it into the Debian package structure and calling dpkg-deb to build the thing.
IIRC the only thing that got used from the original package was a stripped down metadata file so that we'd install over an existing install gracefully.

After today's work, it declares format V7, which if I understand correctly isn't actually doing much in this case, as I'm essentially just packing binary files.

If I understand what's going on with the rules file correctly, the only real advantage would be that we could just call the dpkg creation command in the root directory, and dpkg would sort everything else out?
Not entirely clear whether it's a Debian requirement for things to work in this way, or just whether the deb must conform to standards?

[directhex]

For a "use Debian packaging on a tarball of binaries not source" your example is https://github.com/mono/linux-packaging-nuget

But bear in mind this strategy isn't ok for inclusion in packaging repositories

[leezer3]

OK, so I've got some progress, but I'll admit this is giving me a real headache.

Due to a lot of changes to the structure of things (specifically intended to reduce the amount of duplicate code between the main program and the viewers), the build order is rather important. Attempting to do this manually is a PITA and requires manual work every time something changes.

As it looks likely that the tools may be included with the main program, I think this makes the easiest method of doing things to be to simply build the main solution file directly, and let this handle the build order itself.

I think we'll need a separate target, or a call to delete the data, but keep that back until the deb is actually generating.....

---

Current state of play
(n.b. Please ignore the version number etc, I just needed something to stuff in there to keep the scripts happy)
afd9ea9

This is the current test commit.
At the minute, dpkg-buildpkg is failing with the following (truncated for brevity) output:

	Could not read /mnt/downloads/SourceCode/debian/openbve.substvars
	Could not read /mnt/downloads/SourceCode/debian/openbve.substvars
	Could not read /mnt/downloads/SourceCode/debian/openbve.substvars
	(grep -a -s -v cli:Depends debian/openbve.substvars; echo "cli:Depends=libc6 (>= 2.24) | libc6.1 (>= 2.24) | libc0.1 (>= 2.24), libgl1-mesa-glx, libmono-corlib4.5-cil (>= 4.6.1.3), libmono-system-core4.0-cil (>= 4.6.1.3), libmono-system-drawing4.0-cil (>= 4.6.1.3), libmono-system-windows-forms4.0-cil (>= 1.0), libmono-system-xml-linq4.0-cil (>= 4.2.0), libmono-system-xml4.0-cil (>= 4.6.1.3), libmono-system4.0-cil (>= 4.6.1.3), libopenal1, libx11-6 (>= 2:1.6.0), libxcursor1 (>> 1.1.2), libxi6 (>= 2:1.6.99.1), libxinerama1, libxrandr2 (>= 2:1.5)") > debian/openbve.substvars.new
	mv debian/openbve.substvars.new debian/openbve.substvars
	grep -a -s -v '^cli:Recommends=' debian/openbve.substvars > debian/openbve.substvars.new || true
	mv debian/openbve.substvars.new debian/openbve.substvars
	grep -a -s -v '^cli:Suggests=' debian/openbve.substvars > debian/openbve.substvars.new || true
	mv debian/openbve.substvars.new debian/openbve.substvars
dh_clideps: Error: unresolvable module references or missing shlibs entries, please check above errors!
debian/rules:20: recipe for target 'override_dh_clideps' failed
make[1]: *** [override_dh_clideps] Error 255
make[1]: Leaving directory '/mnt/downloads/SourceCode'
debian/rules:23: recipe for target 'binary' failed
make: *** [binary] Error 2
dpkg-buildpackage: error: fakeroot debian/rules binary gave error exit status 2

[directhex]

Can you stick the full build log in gist? Some is missing

Also, it looks like you included some temporary files in your commit - you can delete all files with substvars or debhelper in the filename

[leezer3]

https://gist.github.com/leezer3/bf8a4e5fd3ab1485cb35b209cb6d3650

Full build log.

I'm sure there are plenty of other flaws in my build logic, so please don't spend too much time on this. Happy enough to keep fiddling myself once I understand it a little better :)

[directhex]

dllmap issues - the installed assemblies dllimport native libs whose packages can't be determined - e.g. ole32.dll (unsurprising, since that's Windows only)

You can either exclude the named things by adding --exclude-moduleref calls to the override_dh_clideps target in debian/rules, or add them to a dllmap , or ideally a combination of both. i.e. dllmap for libXxf86vm -> libXxf86vm.so.1, exclude for /System/Library/Frameworks/ApplicationServices.framework/Versions/Current/ApplicationServices

You also have one shlibs issue for libSDL2-2.0.so.0 - change the Depends: line in debian/control to Depends: ${cli:Depends}, ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends} for full automatic dependency resolution, including a fix for the missing libSDL2 dependency

[leezer3]

Thanks.

I've got it building now, although I had to disable EGL, KVM and some other stuff from checking.
I don't think that matters, as we don't use these features, they're just present in the openTK dll we import?

TODO:

• Exclude the data assets from the built deb. I thought excluding them from the source tarball would work, but nope. Complicates things marginally that we store our plugins in this directory, else I'd just delete as a post-build step.
• Related- lintian is still complaining about the permissions of the data. I think the entire folder needs a chmod to 644 in GIT.
• Add the launch binary. I think this probably wants to be created as a script somewhere and then called from the debian/install script.
• Create a changelog. How much do Debian want here; There are a lot of large changes since the last build they had. Possibly just use the new upstream version?
• Who should be packaging / signing?
• Related, we need to figure out who the maintainer actually is. We have an offer from henrich, @sladen is still I think the current maintainer, or what?

[leezer3]

openbve_1.6.0.0-1_all.zip

Test generated deb & the two other generated files.
Note that it's unsigned, and the version number is temporary.

[ginga81]

・Who should be packaging / signing?
I think that this is may be yourself(Mr.leeser3).

・Related, we need to figure out who the maintainer actually is. We have an offer from henrich, @sladen is still I think the current maintainer, or what?
I think that if the build is completely new, someone who candidates choose our project.
I think may be that we cannot choose the new maintainer directly.
Mr. henrich is only become the sponser of WNPP, not a maintainer.

[ginga81]

To create deb package more easily, may be helps this tool?
https://lintian.debian.org/
This tool is written here.
https://www.clear-code.com/blog/2014/4/3.html

[sladen]

For the record, the Maintainer: is a shared team:

• Maintainer: Debian CLI Applications Team <pkg-cli-apps-team@lists.alioth.debian.org>

[ginga81]

Mr.leeser3, if you are ready to deb package, please send the email to submit@bugs.debian.org with WNPP template, and report me.
I tweet to Mr.henrich.

[leezer3]

I'm still working on it in the linked branch :)

We now have basic wrappers for the Object Viewer / Route Viewer binaries, but for some reason the menu entry isn't triggering correctly.
Other than that, the data needs sorting and packaging correctly too (assuming that is Debian want to retain the two package structure)

When I'm done, the linked branch will get merged into mainline, and hopefully added to the CI.
At that point, we should be ready to release the 'real' 1.6.0.0, which is what will want submitting to Debian :)

[ginga81]

I heard that this marge is ready to come back to debian from @s520 .
Are you ready for WNPP and send to submit@bugs.debian.org?
If so, I will tweet to henrich.

[leezer3]

It seems to build the deb OK on Stretch, but not on Jessie.
Haven't had a chance to investigate yet.....

[sladen]

s520: there is no contradict;

1. There is only a request for information.
2. When everyone has the same information,
3. It becomes possible to start a useful discussion.
4. Useful discussion normally produces good outcomes.

[ginga81]

@sladen
The fastest way is 'you' see the master and check if it is consistent with the guidelines.

[sladen]

From Debian's perspective, the debian/copyright file is:

https://salsa.debian.org/debian/openbve/blob/debian/sid/debian/copyright

Most of which appears to still be as-written 10 years ago; and hopefully the Debian FTP master team would review the information in the same form.

The debian/copyright files porbably needs updating/appending with the new authors/copyright holders.

[s520]

henrichは全てのファイルにライセンスとauthors/copyright holdersを書くように言いました。
あなたの言うことと両方行えば確実になるでしょう。

しかし、問題があります。
私はauthors/copyright holdersを"The OpenBVE Project"にしたいと思っています。
henrichはauthors/copyright holdersを"The OpenBVE Project"にすることに疑問を呈しました。
これについての、あなたの考えを教えてください。
なお、なぜ疑問を呈したのかhenrichは理由を述べませんでした。

[sladen]

Where is the text "The OpenBVE Project"? In:

• https://salsa.debian.org/debian/openbve/blob/debian/sid/debian/copyright#L8

says:

Copyright: 2008-2012 Michelle Boucquemont
 Anthony Bowden
 Jens Rügenhagen

and:

• https://salsa.debian.org/debian/openbve/blob/debian/sid/debian/copyright#L217

says:

Copyright: 2009-2012 Paul Sladen

[s520]

下記のような記述を考えていました。
Copyright: 2008-2012 Michelle Boucquemont Anthony Bowden Jens Rügenhagen, 2019 The OpenBVE Project
現在はオリジナル3以外にも多くの貢献者が存在します。
彼らを代表して"The OpenBVE Project"を著作者に加えることは、おかしなことですか?

[sladen]

At the moment, there is no legal entity/company/foundation called "The OpenBVE Project".

On could do something like OpenStreetMap which requires:

"© OpenStreetMap contributors"

as short-hand (abbreviation) + URL link to:

• https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright

which contains lots of information about who the contributors are ("Our contributors are thousands of individuals.").

As a first-step, a page like eg:

• https://openbve-project.net/copyright

needs creating, which everyone's names on. If that is not possible, it is better to add the exact names to each individual file; showing which files each copyright holder created/modified/edited. (The full Git history may be useful here).

At the moment there is zero copyright iformatin

[sladen]

There is some information at:

• https://salsa.debian.org/debian/openbve/blob/debian/sid/Contributing.md#code-licencing
• https://salsa.debian.org/debian/openbve/blob/debian/sid/Contributing.md#list-of-contributors

[s520]

分かりました。
しかし、これ以上の議論はプロジェクトリーダーの @leezer3 さんの判断が必要です。
彼がこのメッセージを確認するまで待ちます。

[ginga81]

@sladen
I want you promice to make sure that you will be contacted immediately.
I understand that sometimes forget because we are human, but if it seems that maintenance will not be possible, please contact to leeser3 or project.

[sladen]

At the bottom of:

• https://openbve-project.net/

the webpage currently says:

© 2019 The OpenBVE Project. Powered by Jekyll.

ideally this should be corrected, for example:

© 2019 OpenBVE contributions; and placed in the Public Domain.  Website powered by Jekyll.

Or something like this. The important part is the placing into the Public Domain/BSD-2-line licence.

[s520]

@sladen さん
@ginga81 さんの意見は見ましたか?

I want you promice to make sure that you will be contacted immediately.
I understand that sometimes forget because we are human, but if it seems that maintenance will not be possible, please contact to leeser3 or project.

私も同じ意見です。約束してください。

[sladen]

@s520, @ginga81:

Nobody should feel the need to promise anything. People (humans, everyone) do their best—sometimes it takes time.

An important reason for open/Public Domain/Free Software/sharing is that there is no requirement to ask, or re-ask earlier authors. The contributions are, given, forever.

It was ~10 years since OpenBVE was first uploaded to Ubuntu/Debian. It would be wonderful to get OpenBVE back into Debian/Ubuntu, along with even more routes (@leezer3 offered to release some GWR cabs under a proper licence). Please do not worry! We'll get there; it just takes time.

[leezer3]

First a note: I'm at work & won't really have a chance to properly respond to this discussion until tomorrow at the earliest.

Contributor Lists:

We have a basic list of major contributors in here, but no specifics: https://github.com/leezer3/OpenBVE/blob/master/Contributing.md
This should be linked from the website & expaneded in scope a bit by the looks of things- Easy enough.

We could also do with a CLA adding. This has been alluded to in the file above, and all contributors have been asked, but formalise it.

Website:

This can be tweaked, should just be in the Jekyll template.

Legal Entity:

This is a funny one. My instinct is that under UK Law, 'the openBVE Project' would be just fine as a trading name assuming the backend group (us!) exists.
Would need to do some research to back that up though.

It really depends what Debian et. al want though- We're only custodians of the name through maintaining the active fork.

[s520]

@leezer3
I am sorry during your work...

[ginga81]

@leezer3
Sorry for disturb your work.

[leezer3]

It doesn't matter :)

What I think is important though is that we all take a step back and think.

A hasty solution is almost never the right one.

BVE was around well before OpenBVE was ever concieved of, and I'm sure a while longer won't hurt.

[s520]

I agree.
I sleep and get calm...

[ginga81]

I agree with your opinion.
At Japan nearly sunrise time.
We are going to the bed and sleep.
goodnight...

[henrich]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 09:42:43 -0700 s520 ***@***.***> wrote: なお、なぜ疑問を呈したのかhenrichは理由を述べませんでした。

Your attitude is so harmful for me, you said "You said a question, so you SHOULD give more detail about it, you're a blocker for our work". **sigh** It was my fault that I've misread leezer3's post at BTS and did not take any action for months (apologizes), however, I just wanted to do some help to OpenBVE (at that time). s520, are you some kind of paid customer, or my boss? (or my wife? ;) Should I send a bill?

…

-- Regards, Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.org/iijmio-mail.jp

[s520]

I just wanted a constructive discussion.
Of course I don't want to squeeze what I said, but you didn't apologize on Twitter.
So why now say “apologizes”?
And I said that “I apologize for making you feel uncomfortable”. This is my clear apology.

[ginga81]

@leezer3
Please read email that write my personal opinion regarding this matter.

[henrich]

On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 08:03:44 -0700 s520 ***@***.***> wrote: I just wanted a constructive discussion.

Then please **behave** so. Please. I just gave you some question, then you would not say your idea/thought about it, and just claim me to explain the reason the reason why I asked, aggressively. Well, is it a constructive discussion? NO, clearly not (at least for me). And, you _did_ the same thing, again.

Of course I don't want to squeeze what I said, but you didn't apologize on Twitter. So why now say “apologizes”? And I said that “I apologize for making you feel uncomfortable”. This is my clear apology.

You don't understand what was wrong, just _saying_ "clear apology"... If you get the idea, you wouldn't say so. Why should I explain it as a defendant in a court? (You treat me as it, I'm not sure you're aware of it or not). To be clear, I don't have any duty to put openbve package to Debian (I'm sorry), just wanted to do some help at that time (yes, at that time). However, it seems that you misunderstand it. Unfortunately, you seem that do not understand people have a different idea, priority, and motivation.

> #330 (comment)

If you forcefully order to do something to someone, you should pay something, or behave to be more polite as someone wants to do so.

…

-- Hideki Yamane <henrich@iijmio-mail.jp>

[henrich]

For constructive discussions ;), * debian/copyright should be clear one, better to be machine-readable copyright format 1.0. There's no reason to be old style. * Removing debian directory from master branch is better, it causes conflicts with distro packaging. If you stay it, making a branch for it (maybe ubuntu or something?) * Using CI thing in salsa is good, put debian/salsa-ci.yml I've enabled it in repo. * Anyway, please pull master from github and try to merge it to debian/sid branch, if debian/ directory moves away from master.

[leezer3]

I've done some work on this today.
We're still not quite there, but are somewhat closer to following the standards. (This work has been applied to the current branch- Note that as of 1.7.0 we will not build on anything older than Stretch)
The Salsa repo has also been forked, on my end, and I need to figure out the correct way of getting the current branch synced in before I can think about a PR to the main one.

Whilst I'm only loosely following the written Japanese conversation & social nuances (Mostly via translator- I can acceptably follow spoken Japanese TV etc. but not written) it's clear that we all need to step back and think before we write anything.
It's incredibly easy for a little thing to turn into a major misunderstanding :)

This also seems an opportune point to again remind all parties involved that nobody is getting paid here, least of all me!
Please remember that....

[ginga81]

A Japanese user, that is Five Motor Sound's creator says that 'You can register to the Snap Store, is it?
If so, we can't resume to the Debian, but, we can install to a lot of Linux Distribution, isn' t it?'
Can you consider about this ?

[leezer3]

Interesting thought.

Flatpaks, Snaps et. al are definitely gaining a little in functionality/ support, but they're also a mess internally, and would involve a far larger download size (although we wouldn't be hosting it) as they need to package the complete Mono runtime and associated stuff.

[ginga81]

How to interact with debian
https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/
I heard that you need to join the mailing list and request the appropriate forum.
He say that he reported JDIM software to Lanuchpad(for Ubuntu's mailing-list), and merged by Yamane.
The S520 is still a sick bed, so we haven't taken any action from the Japanese side because as we are committers, but if contact yourself, it may progress.