SDL 2.0 RC1 and DirectFB

Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo manuel.montezelo at
Sat Jun 1 14:34:45 UTC 2013

2013/6/1 Felix Geyer <fgeyer at>:
> Hi,
> 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?

If it's not enabled by default and with errors, I'd say to disable it.
 We can revert if somebody actually asks for it and it's fixed at a
later point.

> There is also a release candidate for SDL_image available

Is it?  I didn't see it in the website for the module, nor main website, nor tagged as such in the repositories.  In
fact, I've been monitoring it since quite a while ago from time to
time and I haven't seen a definitive -RC to serve as trigger to
package it.

> so we need to settle for a package naming scheme.
> [...]
> Personally I'd prefer using the upstream tarball name but don't have
> a strong opinion about that.

I also don't have a strong opinion of that, but let's try to make this
discussion the definitive one because it's a recurring topic :-)  (not
blaming you for bringing it up, on the contrary, thanks for bringing
it up on the mailing list).

> 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.

I think that it makes sense to use the same name as upstream (although
we cannot maintain it completely, for example we cannot use the
underscore nor uppercase, I think); and for me it also makes sense to
follow the idea of having "lib" as prefix.

For me, maintaining the trend of [lib]sdl-moduleVERSION doesn't make
sense, because neither upstream is named like that, nor it will
probably be named like that in other distributions.  Maintaining the
trend with our previous package names is not worth pursuing in my
opinion, given that it doesn't cause problems or unnecessary overhead
-- so this is the ideal time to break it.

So I would prefer either sdl2-module or libsdl2-module (slightly more
this one because the other is not exactly the same as upstream
anyway).  I don't think that we should do [lib]sdl-moduleVERSION.

Now, apart from the above, I would also like to maintain some
coherence with all v2 packages, and there's already src:libsdl2, so if
we choose "sdl2-module" I would like to change the main library to

And now that we are at it, I thikn that all binary packages should be
named libsdl2 (with -dev/-doc/-dbg/-etc), libsdl2-module (also

Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo at>

More information about the Pkg-sdl-maintainers mailing list