Bug#1070845: Packaging Godot 4.3

[Travis Wrightsman]

I'm curious why a src:godot4 rather than keeping src:godot at 4.x and
introducing a new src:godot3? To me it makes more sense to have
src:godot track the latest stable version.

On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 08:33:37AM +0100, Alexandre Detiste wrote:
> So technically this would mean an new src:godot4 that will generate a
> new gogod4 binary package.
> 
> Le mar. 10 déc. 2024 à 08:26, Alexandre Detiste
> <alexandre.detiste at gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > We can have both godot3 and godot4 for Trixie, under Games Teams,
> > that would be the best !
> >
> > (then maybe drop Godot3 after release)
> >
> > Le lun. 16 sept. 2024 à 07:00, Travis Wrightsman
> > <travis at wrightsman.org> a écrit :
> > >
> > > Hello Games Team,
> > >
> > > I have been slowly working towards packaging Godot 4.3 now that the
> > > stable release is out.
> > >
> > > I'm relatively new to Debian packaging and this is a major version
> > > bump so I'm hoping you all could guide me towards something worth
> > > uploading :)
> > >
> > > I created an MR [0] in Salsa with the current draft of my packaging
> > > efforts. Currently, it builds successfully on my x86_64 machine but
> > > there are still some failing unit tests to investigate.
> > >
> > > I'm also hoping to get the documentation packaged for offline use as
> > > well, but it is in a separate repository that doesn't have tagged
> > > releases.
> > >
> > > Things off the top of my head that need wider discussion:
> > >
> > > 1. Does it make sense to rename the Salsa repo from godot3 to just
> > >    godot?
> > > 2. Does the Salsa repo belong better under the Games Team or
> > >    where it currently is (plain debian/).
> > > 3. Should a separate 3.x package continue to be maintained?
> > >
> > > Looking forward to hearing people's thoughts, especially current users
> > > of Godot in Debian.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Travis
> > >
> > > [0] https://salsa.debian.org/debian/godot3/-/merge_requests/3
> > >