RFS: 0ad

[Paul Wise]

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Vincent Cheng <vincentc1208 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Maybe porting to another JavaScript engine (like Google V8) is the
best long-term solution?

> 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...

That was before I knew how they were being used in this package, keep
them in the source package unless upstream introduces build-time or
run-time text rendering.

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise