On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Ansgar Burchardt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > Vincent Cheng <[email protected]> writes: > > - package libenet1.2, and replace 0ad's build dependency on > > libenet-dev with this new package > > We just got rid of enet 1.2 in testing a few days ago and I prefer to > have just a single version per release to care about (instead of > doubling the number of possible versions from five to ten). > > For Ubuntu users, upstream could include the newer enet in their PPA. > The packages containing the library itself are co-installable, only the > -dev packages for enet 1.2 and 1.3 are not. > > I don't know how to best handle other distributions, but doesn't > upstream have to bundle enet anyway for Windows and Mac OS X users? > > I agree that it would be preferable if we only had to deal with a single enet version, although that depends on whether upstream is willing to port 0 A.D. to enet 1.3. Fortunately, it looks like Philip is willing to consider this option. :) > > - package libmozjs185, and remove the spidermonkey code that's > > currently in the source tarball (this could be deferred until alpha 5 > > is released, since according to Philip, 0 A.D. hasn't been ported to > > work with it yet; for now, I guess we'll have to leave the > > spidermonkey code embedded in the source tarball) > > I suggest to ask the maintainers' of libmozjs-dev how they think about > this. > > I've just sent a message to the Debian Mozilla crew; hopefully we'll get another favourable response. - Vincent
