Vulture's Eye 2.2.100-1maemo6
Nethack with graphical 3D interface
Vulture's Eye is a version of Nethack with a graphical 3D interface
similar to the commercial Diablo RPG.
Section:
user/games
Repository:
Depends:
libc6 (>= 2.5.0-1), libgcc1 (>= 4.2.1), libpng12-0 (>= 1.2.13-4), libsdl-mixer1.2, libsdl-ttf2.0-0, libsdl1.2 (>= 1.2.10-1), libstdc++6 (>= 4.2.1), zlib1g (>= 1.2.1)
Warning: Promotion of packages depending on libsdl-ttf2.0-0 has been disabled. We hope to remove this blockage as soon as possible.
Size:
26865146 bytes
MD5sum:
fa9850c17f2acaa3dacba52d25df6627
Source:
Status:
Old version cleaned by repository management
Bugtracker:
QA Quarantine ends:
ENDED 2010-03-04 17:15
Changes
Version | Changes | Author | Date |
2.2.100-1maemo6 | * Imported new, resized graphics from Arnim Sauerbier. | Marat Fayzullin | 2010-02-22 10:51 UTC |
Tester | Karma | Timestamp |
Alan Howard (176) | 2010-03-20 15:57 UTC | |
Juha-Ville Juntunen (5) | 2010-03-16 11:46 UTC | |
Charles Clément (112) | 2010-03-07 19:39 UTC | |
Willie Pretorius (Tester) (352) | 2010-02-25 20:33 UTC | |
Valério Valério (Tester) (1443) | 2010-02-24 11:33 UTC | |
Timo P (Tester) (830) | 2010-02-24 09:39 UTC | |
Mikko Vartiainen (Tester) (2221) | 2010-02-23 13:50 UTC | |
Emanuele Cassioli (Tester) (986) | 2010-02-22 17:56 UTC | |
Marat Fayzullin (Maintainer) (1594) | 2010-02-22 17:40 UTC |
Package events
Event type | User | Timestamp |
Old version cleaned by repository management | System | 2010-04-07 13:18 UTC |
Package is in testing | System | 2010-02-22 17:15 UTC |
Comments:
Nice work!
Unfortunately it still has a bug that pretty much makes the game unplayable for a causal user: if the fullscreen mode is toggled in the options the bottom of the interface is not visible anymore including the options button and only way to reset the screen is to edit the text configuration file (at least I couldn't find any other way to reset it).
Otherwise would be thumbs up.
ps. I really would like to see a proper bugtracer used also for this (which is, obviously, not talk.maemo.org)
Marat, common sense should tell you that a generic link is not a valid bugtracker, and because it's common sense is why it's never really been needed to directly publish it in the past - The following (work in progress) page is however clarifying exactly what is and is not valid as a bugtracker link for you:
http://wiki.maemo.org/Bugtracker
@Emanuele: Well, if you cannot provide a reference to a published policy that clearly states that talk.maemo.org is not a proper bugtracker, then do not mark packages down based on your opinion that it is not a proper bugtracker. Simple as that.
@Emanuele: Bugtracker requirement is good, but requiring a link embedded in the package has no real benefit.
My view on this topic http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=44143&page=2
Oh my, this is so simple to get right, don't understand how a developer that can code/port a app can't understand these simple rules.
A joke is provide something generic like talk.maemo.com, at least a thread about the application.
Mikko, that is ridiculous. talk.maemo.org is as good as www.google.com. please look at my proposal at Emanuelles link. But far more effort than linking a front page of a portal or similar is needed IMO.
@Marat: You are asking the impossible. As everyone knows, QA checklist is far away from perfection and many things are left to subjectivity.
http://wiki.maemo.org/Testing_Squad#The_application_has_no_bugtracker.2C_should_I_thumb_it_down.3F
According to this article, I've to check if the bugtracker is valid. Of course "valid" is a very subjective word, and can be interpreted in many ways.
I usually consider a bugtracker as "valid" when it contains a link to a place where if I report something it will be certainly and immediately noticed to the developer. Using that criterion, a link to Bugzilla represents perfection, and even a mailto link (assuming that mail is often checked by the developer, and because of this assumption mailto link are accepted only for packages where just a few and not-serious reports are expected, like wallpapers/themes).
You understand that this criterion excludes a generic link like talk.maemo.org (or bugs.maemo.org), because you should be noticed about every single new thread started there, and this is just not possible.
Even if you pass the day in front of your screen searching for reports in talk.maemo.org, gradually losing your eyesight, it can't be guaranteed that you'll find all of them, because there will be a newbie reporting a bug in the wrong section, with an unreadable title and without any referring to this app.
@Mikko: please note that bugtracker requirement is not a joke, and even if you love an app it just can't go to Extras until it has provided a valid bugtracker link. Otherwise, Extras repository itself would be useless, bugtracker encloses the whole open source spirit.
Can you call it open source if you can't find a place where to report the bugs you've found? I don't think so.
I had to thumb down applications of developers that have provided bugtrackers far more valid than this one, just because they have used bad scripts and it is not perfectly readable, because rules are rules.
If we want it to work, we need to be abiding to the rules.
Of course everyone has different opinions, but until stricter rules are set, these are my policies.
He can't. Bugtracker link requirement has turned into a joke. Thumbs down for it.
+1 for this
Emanuele, could you please provide a reference to the maemo.org policy document that explicitly prohibits me from providing a generic link to talk.maemo.org as the bugtracker?
Comments:
You must be logged in to make comments.