[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: would somebody be interested in updating liballegro from 5.0 to 5.2 ?


no, you don't need to file a RFP bug, as this should be an update to the
allegro5 package.


On 04/20/2016 05:58 PM, shirish शिरीष wrote:
> In-line :-
> On 20/04/2016, James Cowgill <jcowgill@debian.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
> Hi James,
> Thank you for answering quickly.
>> On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 16:03 +0000, shirish शिरीष wrote:
>>> I had previously asked if somebody would package 5.1.6 but as Tobias
>>> had pointed out, it was an unstable branch.
>>> See #704141 for the discussion.
>>> Now 5.2 has been released by upstream, see
>>> http://liballeg.org/download.html as well as the detailed changelog .
>>> http://liballeg.org/changes-5.2.html
>>> I do see that there are changes from both stable as well as unstable
>>> branch added in the repo as well as that the library is
>>> source-compatible but not binary compatible which probably means it
>>> will need to conflict with liballegro5.0 binary package.
>> If it's only binary incompatible, then a standard library transition
>> should work here. There shouldn't be any need for conflicting packages.
> oh cool, so should I put a bug-report for the same ?
>>> I ran both apt-cache rdepends liballegro5.0 as well apt-rdepends
>>> liballegro5.0 but didn't see any games or anything which depends
>>> which will hurt if the new library is added before debian freeze.
>> Ok. There doesn't seem to be any reverse dependencies of allegro5 at
>> all.
> Came to the same conclusion but -
>>> I also did a mock purge to see if there were any libraries which were
>>> affected and the only one which seems to be affected is libdumb1-dev
>>> .
>>> I am guessing the only reason why this version is not being shipped
>>> is
>>> due to the dumb library allegro 4 support issue, see #799008 as well
>>> as the relevant issue in libdumb's new upstream
>>> https://github.com/kode54/dumb/issues/21
>> libdumb is built against allegro4. How will upgrading allegro5 from 5.0
>> to 5.2 have any effect here?
>>> Is this a correct assessment of the situation. Is there a possibility
>>> of having liballegro5.2 and the relevant libdumb version have it in
>>> experimental so people who want to try some games with the new
>>> version
>>>  can try it ?  See
>>> http://forum.freegamedev.net/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=6477 for discussion
>>> of a game which uses the newer version of a library.
>> I don't see why allegro 5.2 can't be uploaded at some point. What do
>> you need libdumb for? The thread doesn't mention anything about it.
> For some reason when I try to purge allegro5.0 libdumb1-dev also get
> purged so thought it was part of the liballegro5.0 package, see if I
> am doing something wrong.
> [$] sudo aptitude purge liballegro5.0 liballegro5-dev
> liballegro-ttf5.0 liballegro-ttf5-dev liballegro-physfs5.0
> liballegro-physfs5-dev liballegro-image5.0 liballegro-image5-dev
> liballegro-dialog5.0 liballegro-dialog5-dev liballegro-audio5.0
> liballegro-audio5-dev liballegro-acodec5.0 liballegro-acodec5-dev
> [sudo] password for shirish:
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
>   liballegro-acodec5-dev{pu} liballegro-acodec5.0{pu}
> liballegro-audio5-dev{pu} liballegro-audio5.0{pu}
> liballegro-dialog5-dev{pu} liballegro-dialog5.0{pu}
> liballegro-image5-dev{pu} liballegro-image5.0{pu}
> liballegro-physfs5-dev{pu} liballegro-physfs5.0{pu}
> liballegro-ttf5-dev{pu} liballegro-ttf5.0{pu} liballegro5-dev{p}
> liballegro5.0{p} libdumb1-dev{u}
> 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 15 to remove and 2 not upgraded.
> Need to get 0 B of archives. After unpacking 3,508 kB will be freed.
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?] n
> As can be seen if I purge liballegro5.0 and the relevant packages then
> libdumb1-dev also gets purged.
> Also -
> [$] aptitude why libdumb1-dev
> i   liballegro5-dev        Recommends liballegro-acodec5-dev
> i A liballegro-acodec5-dev Depends  libdumb1-dev
> So should I put up a bug-report about liballegro5.2, anyone interested
> to make that happen ?
>> James

Reply to: