Linas Žvirblis wrote: > Eddy Petrior wrote: > >>> would consider versioned build-conflicts a cleaner solution. >> WHAT? >> I really don't understand where from did you get this type awry thinking. This is plain backwards thinking! > > Yeah, I sometimes do that. :) We all do that ;-) > is fine with me. (as in "I put the dependency back") (on a side note, I understand that it seems unnecessary since the current stable has that deps satisfied by default) >>> some patches that are said to bring initial support for 64-bit systems, >>> but I have not yet managed to find out where they ended up. Will try the >>> latest SVN some time later this week. >> Just tell me when I can try. If it doesn't work, I might work (depending on how much I like the game ;-) on completing >> the patches . > > A pleasant surprise, the latest SVN almost works. There still is 100% > crash possibility (has something to do with damage calculations), but lol, 100% crash possibility ... > otherwise runs fine (as long as nothing gets damaged). > > I did have time to do the bughunting yet, but I prepared the updated > packages (in SVN). Maybe we should upload them to experimental? The game > is perfectly stable on 32-bit systems after all. That seems sane enough... a later upload might make sense in sid and we could submit an RC bug ourselves to prevent migration to testing until we make it work. I consider this a better approach than removing non-working arches since we would have a way to say "please try now" instead of "I think we fixed it, but we must do another upload with your arch enabled" (i.e. "some testing" as opposed to "we do the testing ourselves") -- Regards, EddyP ============================================= "Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature