On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Paul Wise
<pabs@debian.org> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Vincent Cheng <
vincentc1208@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
Oops, don't know why I broke off mid-sentence like that. My point was that porting 0 A.D. to work with newer versions of Spidermonkey seems to be a lot of work for very little gain and lots of opportunities for potential breakage. Philip addressed this already in an earlier message [1].
However, the Debian Mozilla team doesn't seem to be very enthusiastic about supporting an older version of Spidermonkey in the long run. What would be the best course of action now? I don't want to pressure upstream to port 0 A.D. to a newer Spidermonkey version if they have no desire to do so (and I have no clue how to port software), I can't pressure the Debian Mozilla team to maintain an older Spidermonkey version for a single piece of software (and I'm sure that they have a lot of other work to do), and from the replies I've seen so far, it seems that embedding Spidermonkey code in 0 A.D.'s source is a no-no, or at least strongly discouraged.
�
> 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?
No, since the fonts are the source code for those images and we have DFSG #2.