Re: supertuxkart 0.7.3
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 02:55:50AM -0800, Vincent Cheng wrote:
> Precedent for the latter, i.e. precedent for embedding forked code in
> a package? Sure, there are hundreds of examples [1].
No, the latter was the patch-irrlicht route. So I agree with you that embedding
in supertuxkart is the better approach. I was wondering if there was precedent
for creating a special patched version of binary lib packages for just one
other package to build-depend on.
> > And every time the supertuxkart-specific bits were modified, all users
> > of the other bits would get a new binary package to download and install,
> > for no reason.
>
> I've been thinking of splitting up supertuxkart into two separate
> source packages (supertuxkart and supertuxkart-data), actually, which
> more or less takes care of this problem.
To clarify the problem I was talking about was if you patched irrlicht then
every time any change was made to the supertuxkart-specific bits, the source
version will increment, and the non-supertuxkart-specific irrlicht binary
packages will be rebuilt and users of those will get new binary packages to
download which don't do anything new.
Reply to: