RFS: 0ad

Vincent Cheng vincentc1208 at gmail.com
Sun Apr 10 09:49:43 UTC 2011


On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Paul Wise <pabs at debian.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Vincent Cheng <vincentc1208 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Similar to why 0 A.D. needs libenet 1.2; Philip explained earlier that 0
> > A.D. needs a specific version of Spidermonkey (1.8.5) in order to
> maintain
> > compatibility, since it uses advanced Spidermonkey features and users
> with
> > different versions of Spidermonkey may run into issues in multiplayer
> games
> > (as an
>
> as an ?
>
> Oops, don't know why I broke off mid-sentence like that. My point was that
porting 0 A.D. to work with newer versions of Spidermonkey seems to be a lot
of work for very little gain and lots of opportunities for potential
breakage. Philip addressed this already in an earlier message [1].

However, the Debian Mozilla team doesn't seem to be very enthusiastic about
supporting an older version of Spidermonkey in the long run. What would be
the best course of action now? I don't want to pressure upstream to port 0
A.D. to a newer Spidermonkey version if they have no desire to do so (and I
have no clue how to port software), I can't pressure the Debian Mozilla team
to maintain an older Spidermonkey version for a single piece of software
(and I'm sure that they have a lot of other work to do), and 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.


> > Just wanted some clarification; if upstream chooses not to implement a
> build
> > system where fonts are converted into glyphs/bitmaps during the build,
> and
> > instead stick with pre-rendered glyphs in the source package, it would be
> ok
> > to simply strip out the fonts, and not have to package them separately as
> > you suggested in an earlier mail?
>
> No, since the fonts are the source code for those images and we have DFSG
> #2.
>
> In an earlier message [2], you suggested that various .ttf fonts
(DejaVuSans.ttf, DejaVuSansMono.ttf, texgyrepagella-regular.otf,
texgyrepagella-bold.otf) should be removed from the source package. But on
the other hand, since the fonts are source code for the glyphs, they
shouldn't be removed, right? Sorry, but I can't help but feel somewhat
confused...

- Vincent

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-games/2011/04/msg00038.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-games/2011/04/msg00030.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-games-devel/attachments/20110410/a50f1916/attachment.htm>


More information about the Pkg-games-devel mailing list