On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Paul Wise
<pabs@debian.org> wrote:
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
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)?
Similar to why 0 A.D. needs libenet 1.2; Philip explained earlier that 0 A.D. needs a specific version of Spidermonkey (1.8.5) in order to maintain compatibility, since it uses advanced Spidermonkey features and users with different versions of Spidermonkey may run into issues in multiplayer games (as an
> - 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?
Just wanted some clarification; if upstream chooses not to implement a build system where fonts are converted into glyphs/bitmaps during the build, and instead stick with pre-rendered glyphs in the source package, it would be ok to simply strip out the fonts, and not have to package them separately as you suggested in an earlier mail?