SDL 2.0 RC1 and DirectFB
fgeyer at debian.org
Sat Jun 1 13:53:29 UTC 2013
I've started packaging SDL 2.0.0 RC1 and noticed that the
DirectFB support is in bad shape.
It has obvious syntax errors and you get a bunch of other compiler
errors when you try to build it.
Upstream has also disabled it by default (was enabled in 1.2).
Do we want/need to support DirectFB?
There is also a release candidate for SDL_image available so
we need to settle for a package naming scheme.
I guess the options are sdl2-image (matches upstream tarball),
sdl-image2 (matches 1.2 naming scheme), libsdl2-image (matches libsdl2
name) or libsdl-image2.
Personally I'd prefer using the upstream tarball name but don't have
a strong opinion about that.
More information about the Pkg-sdl-maintainers