Re: RFS: 0ad
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Vincent Cheng <vincentc1208@gmail.com> wrote:
> - package libenet1.2, and replace 0ad's build dependency on libenet-dev with
> this new package
I'd prefer to have only one version of enet in Debian, but I
understand the reasoning here (protocol incompatibility).
> - package libmozjs185, and remove the spidermonkey code that's currently in
> the source tarball (this could be deferred until alpha 5 is released, since
> according to Philip, 0 A.D. hasn't been ported to work with it yet; for now,
> I guess we'll have to leave the spidermonkey code embedded in the source
> tarball)
Why can't you use the versions of SpiderMonkey already in the archive
(1.9.1.18, 2.0)?
> - determine what, if anything, needs to be removed from the source tarball
> (the only thing I've removed so far is
> /libraries/fcollada/src/FCollada/FColladaTest/Samples/Eagle.DAE)
I'd suggest also removing any embedded code copies that aren't used by
the Debian package.
> As for the fonts, since they aren't used during the build or at runtime,
> would it really be necessary to package them separately (is there any point
> in having an unused package in Debian's repositories)? Removing them from
> the source tarball would be a much faster alternative, unless upstream
> decides to set up a build system to convert/render those fonts at build
> time.
I covered this in my earlier mail, was my guess about how they are
used incorrect?
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: