Re: Quake packaging
On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 at 10:47:00 +0100, David Banks wrote:
> You mentioned that I could try to upstream the Darkplaces patches, I
> took a look at them today. I guess I should try all of them? I'll
> probably submit the build system improvements as a single patch to make
> it easier for upstream to review.
Whichever you think is easier, really; I prefer to err on the side of
more/smaller commits, personally, but there are advantages either way.
I'm not completely happy with debian/patches/10_detect_gnu-kfreebsd.patch,
so you might want to hold off on that one, or improve it: pretending that
kFreeBSD is Linux seems a bit of a hack (even though the build system really
wants to be checking for GNU rather than Linux, and both have GNU userland).
The approach I've just committed to quakespasm seems cleaner, but in
DarkPlaces it might need some more complex changes elsewhere.
I've just added one more patch, to fix builds on non-x86 (which came out
more intrusive than I'd hoped).
> And I'm not sure I understand the
> libpng type safety stuff, could you quickly summarize it for me?
I've improved the descriptions of both the type-safety-related patches,
hopefully that's enough?
> Actually a separate binary package per mission pack sounds totally fine.
> Not sure what I meant above.
I didn't need to do that in the end - I used the TryExec field to hide the
menu entries for the mission packs if appropriate data packages aren't
installed. Best of both worlds :-)