[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

SDL packages status



Okay, here's how things stand with the SDL packages now:

 - My preliminary SDL packages will not break any package in Debian at
   this time.  Not even a recompile is needed.  I was worried this might
   not be the case, however I have been since been educated with a clue
   stick about symbol namespaces.  About 1/3 of all SDL-using packages for
   i386 have been personally tested by me already.  A handfull of packages
   have been tested on other archs already.  All work.  A SuSE-produced
   binary (version uncertain) also ran fine.
 - Packages which use sdl-config --plugin-libs or --library-libs will not
   break if recompiled.  I've aliased these to --libs and will not remove
   them until after woody is released.
 - The rpath lintian warning for packages compiled with my SDL packages
   has been fixed with the version available now.  It wasn't libtool.  I
   must be blind or something, the real cause was right under my nose.

PLEASE, if you have access to a non-i386 machine, test these packages.
The first question about half of the people with such machines have asked
me already is whether or not I am working to improve the clusterfuck that
is SDL on other archs.  (Their words, not mine.)  The answer is yes - but
I don't have access to these machines, so I can only guarantee that these
packages do not break anything not already broken.  In particular, I would
greatly appreciate it if someone could try out the packages on a Sparc.

The changelog for 1.2.3+cvs20020303:

libsdl1.2 (1.2.3+cvs20020303-0.3) unstable; urgency=low

  * Preliminary test package, not uploaded to Debian
  * Changes for 1.2.3+cvs20020303-0.3:
    - Proper fix for the rpath problem.  I hope.
  * Changes for 1.2.3+cvs20020303-0.2:
    - Things built with this package do not run with the current packages
      in Debian.  Shlibs files fixed to depend on (>> 1.2.3).  Existing
      packages need not be recompiled.
    - 1.2.2-3.1 introduced new options for sdl-config which are no longer
      needed.  To prevent build-from-source errors with woody packages,
      these options are once again recognized.
    - Attempt to fix libtool's rpath "feature"
  * Changes for 1.2.3+cvs20020303-0.1:
    - Fix for #128075 got lost in -0, put it back (Thanks Michel!)
  * Changes for 1.2.3+cvs20020303-0:
    - New upstream version (Closes: #135898)
    - Upstream fix for #114808 brings Debian's ABI back inline with that
      used by other distributions (Closes: #136237)
    - Disabled GGI in the -all package.  This is against my stated
      intention when adopting the package, however the GGI target is not
      maintained upstream at this time.  A patch to fix support for GGI is
      welcome, but for now Sam Lantinga has urged it be disabled.
      (Closes: #108558)
    - alsalib-dev has been removed from build deps.  libasound1-dev takes
      its place explicitly, since that's currently the only version which
      actually works with SDL.  libasound2 support is an upstream todo.
    - Tweaked build for automake 1.5, thanks Denis! (Closes: #115422)
    - Added automake to build deps for the above.
    - The SDL and X Extension Library mess has been provided with a better
      fix upstream.  (Closes: #128827)
      [ This has since been confirmed to _not_ need package recompiles! ]
    - Frobbed libsdl1.2debian's deps to prefer the -oss package by
      default.  This is to stop people in #SDL and #OpenGL from whining
      about how trying to install any SDL app with apt pulls in about 15
      megs worth of cruft that 2/3 of all users could not possibly care
      less about.  This is for you, Erik!  ;)

 -- Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org>  Tue,  5 Mar 2002 08:07:57 +0000


The deb lines, again, for the lazy:

deb http://people.debian.org/~knghtbrd ./
deb-src http://people.debian.org/~knghtbrd ./

-- 
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net>          You want fries with that?
 
* Knghtbrd crosses his toes
<Knghtbrd> (if I crossed my fingers it would be hard to type)

Attachment: pgpzZTrdo1WNG.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: