Re: RFS: 0ad
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:26:08AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 06:04:43PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > > from the replies I've seen so far, it seems that embedding Spidermonkey
> > > code in 0 A.D.'s source is a no-no, or at least strongly discouraged.
> >
> > Maybe porting to another JavaScript engine (like Google V8) is the best
> > long-term solution?
>
> It seems to be asking a lot of upstream. Is there a likelyhood for any other
> package to make use of the old spidermonkey version (when it is old, that is)?
> I'd expect not, and so I'd think using the bundled version was the sensible
> choice.
There are several packages using spidermonkey, and they are originally
designed for various versions of spidermonkey. If we'd keep these
bundled versions, we'd have 10 copies of different versions of (security
hazardous) spidermonkey in the archive. If we'd package all of them as
separate packages, we'd have 10 spidermonkey packages. The sensible
choice is to either avoid using spidermonkey, or use the latest
available in Debian.
Mike
Reply to: