Re: Mass bug filing / call for testing: dependencies on SDL 1.2
On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 at 08:50:30 +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 17:24:03 +0100, Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> wrote:
> > SDL 1.2 was superseded by SDL 2 several years ago, and no longer receives
> > upstream maintenance or releases. Maintained software that uses SDL 1.2
> > should be ported to SDL 2.
>
> Given the time scales involved, is it worth waiting for SDL 3 (soon...)
> before porting SDL 1.2 software? I’m assuming that SDL 3 will be available
> for Trixie, and this would avoid two porting efforts.
I don't know what the timescale for a stable release of SDL 3 is like -
I hope it'll be ready before trixie, but I can't guarantee anything. Many
games will not be able to move to SDL 3 until additional libraries like
SDL2_image have a SDL 3 version, so even after everything is API-stable,
it's going to take several trips through NEW before we can ask maintainers
to port to it.
The first step in porting from SDL 1.2 to SDL 3 will be porting to SDL 2
(both the core library and the version of addons like SDL_image), and
the second step would be moving away from any deprecated SDL-2-era APIs,
so I think it's worth doing those regardless.
What I would prefer to try to avoid here is for maintainers to think
"I'll just wait for SDL 3", and then time passes, maintainers are busy
with something else, we freeze, and we have to ship trixie with *three*
major versions of SDL (or at least their -compat equivalents).
Ideally these bugs would have been opened in 2013 or 2014, but better late
than never. (I was not involved in SDL maintenance at that point.)
smcv
Reply to: