On 10.12.2012 12:01, Vincent Cheng wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:46 AM, Markus Koschany <apo@gambaru.de> wrote: >> 1. Releasing version X of STK with version Y of irrlicht and applying >> changes which were made upstream to STK via a patch. I think >> this is mainly a documentation issue and upstream should take care >> of it. > > If what you mean is to patch Debian's irrlicht sources with the > modifications made by stk's devs...that's not a sustainable solution, > especially since upstream has stated that they may break irrlicht's > API with their modifications. Actually i meant the same thing Paul mentioned before. Why is it easier to track changes to an embedded code copy of irrlicht in STK than to build two packages from the same source of irrlicht, one with the STK patch and the other one without? >> 2. Replace irrlicht in Debian with the STK version. Seems to be no >> problem at the moment because only a few packages depend on it but >> would become an issue in the future if we include more games which >> depend on the official irrlicht version. > > We already have at least one package in the archive that I know of > which depends on irrlicht other than stk (i.e. minetest). I'm not > about to break other unrelated packages because stk's devs decided > that they want to fork irrlicht. You had pointed this out at [1] so i thought it might be a viable option. But i agree with you, the chances to break future packages which depend on a clean irrlicht release are high. I wouldn't go for removing STK from Debian. This is always a weapon of last resort. Do whatever else you feel more comfortable with. Regards, Markus [1] http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/supertuxkart/ticket/689
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature