Should we package ldplayer ?

[Emmanuel Kasper]

> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=mame&arch=armel&ver=0.142-1&stamp=1305216060 (successful)
> vs
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=mame&arch=armel&ver=0.141-3&stamp=1303528660 (failed)

> These are warnings, so when you got rid of -Werror it suddently started
> building for armel, and began failing for other arches for different
> reasons (some of them might be fixed by changes in rules now).

Ok I missed that thank you. I had seen that mame suddenly built
correctly on Armel, but I missed the reason.

> http://www.mametesters.org/view.php?id=4318
> 
> NB: I have no idea how grave these warnings are. If they make MAME
> unusable we just forget about it; if it runs, I say we try to build them
> even with NOWERROR.
> 
> So we either /not/ use NOWERROR and officially forget about having MAME in
> these arches, or we selectively add NOWERROR for arches not in this list:
> amd64, i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, powerpc, s390.

On amd64, the NOWERROR flag mostly warns about declared but not used
variables, I don't know on other arches, but I don't think it would
prevent Mame to run in any way. I suspect this is mostly the Mame team
which wants to have beautiful code.

So if it allows to build on some extra arches, I would leave NOWERROR on
for everyone and report the warnings as seen from the buildd logs to the
sdlmame forums.
( It is also less work ;)

Manu

PS a propos armel have you seen
http://mamedev.org/source/src/mame/drivers/39in1.c.html ?
so at some point Mame was made to work fine on ARM :)