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

Re: RFS: 0ad

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Vincent Cheng <vincentc1208@gmail.com> wrote:

> - package libenet1.2, and replace 0ad's build dependency on libenet-dev with
> this new package

I'd prefer to have only one version of enet in Debian, but I
understand the reasoning here (protocol incompatibility).

> - package libmozjs185, and remove the spidermonkey code that's currently in
> the source tarball (this could be deferred until alpha 5 is released, since
> according to Philip, 0 A.D. hasn't been ported to work with it yet; for now,
> I guess we'll have to leave the spidermonkey code embedded in the source
> tarball)

Why can't you use the versions of SpiderMonkey already in the archive
(, 2.0)?

> - determine what, if anything, needs to be removed from the source tarball
> (the only thing I've removed so far is
> /libraries/fcollada/src/FCollada/FColladaTest/Samples/Eagle.DAE)

I'd suggest also removing any embedded code copies that aren't used by
the Debian package.

> As for the fonts, since they aren't used during the build or at runtime,
> would it really be necessary to package them separately (is there any point
> in having an unused package in Debian's repositories)? Removing them from
> the source tarball would be a much faster alternative, unless upstream
> decides to set up a build system to convert/render those fonts at build
> time.

I covered this in my earlier mail, was my guess about how they are
used incorrect?



Reply to: