Re: RFS: snes9x
On Fri, 2011-09-30 at 23:49 +0200, Eshat Cakar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "snes9x".
>
> what does snes9x have, that is not provided by zsnes?
> zsnes, in my opinion, is very stable and does not lack a feature or have any
> performance issues (since mostly written in assembler).
> And I do not say this because I maintain the zsnes package :-P
> I just don't see, what we win here. Correct me, if I missed something.
>
> Best regards
>
Sorry, I brought these things up in my ITP but forgot to put it in the
RFS.
ZSNES is fine, fast and highly stable. I happily used it for years. It'd
be perfectly acceptable, except for the fact that it uses i386 assembly
and therefore isn't portable. Though I've heard rumors of people being
able to cross-compile ZSNES with 32-bit libraries, I never had any
success, which is how I came about using snes9x a couple years ago.
As far as I can tell (I'm sure you can tell me more!), ZSNES hasn't had
an update since 2007. snes9x was RoQA'd back in March because it hadn't
updated in a long time, and because the maintainer had abandoned it, but
a month after the RoQA it was updated to 1.53, and more recently, it has
been hosted on Github, where the most recent commit was this month.
Hopefully, it will keep up at this level of activity.
Although I am a native English speaker, so I have no experience, ZSNES
has no translations that I can see, whereas the GTK version of snes9x
has five translations.
I feel that the GTK interface is nicer than the DOS-esque one of ZSNES,
but I'll admit that's a personal preference.
I hope this explains my reasons for trying to re-package it.
Cheers,
Michael
Reply to: