On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 10:33:01 +0100, Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> wrote: > 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 SDL 1.2 was superseded by SDL 2 several years ago, and no longer 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. Right, so in any case the effort involved in porting to SDL 2 won’t be “wasted” by a subsequent port to SDL 3. > 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.) Indeed! Regards, Stephen
Attachment:
pgphuL3Ha3JvE.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature