Re: supertuxkart 0.7.3
On 10-12-12 01:02, Vincent Cheng wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Tobias Hansen <thansen@debian.org> wrote:
>> Am 10.12.2012 00:04, schrieb Vincent Cheng:
>>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Tobias Hansen <thansen@debian.org> wrote:
>>>> If it's a bug in irrlicht, you can find the patch in the irrlicht svn. If
>>>
>>> Uhmm, thanks? Especially after tagging #677609 and #679837 with
>>> 'help', I was hoping for something a bit more detailed/specific...
>>>
>>> [2] https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/supertuxkart/ticket/689
>>
>> I have not looked into it. My point was that modifying a library to
>> match the needs of one of its reverse dependencies is a bad idea. After
>> looking at your [2], it looks like that is what this is about.
>
> No, I haven't modified irrlicht to meet the needs of supertuxkart.
> It's an option that I have considered though; either that, or just use
> supertuxkart's embedded copy of irrlicht starting with the next
> upstream release. I'm leaning towards the latter because it's the
> least painful option.
I hope this is not true, because it is a very painful option. This is
the reason it is also forbidden by Policy (4.13). Footnote 30 is quite
clear:
> Having multiple copies of the same code in Debian is inefficient,
> often creates either static linking or shared library conflicts, and,
> most importantly, increases the difficulty of handling security
> vulnerabilities in the duplicated code.
Thanks,
Bas
Reply to: