On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Vincent Cheng <[email protected]> wrote:
> Oops, don't know why I broke off mid-sentence like that. My point was that > porting 0 A.D. to work with newer versions of Spidermonkey seems to be a lot > of work for very little gain and lots of opportunities for potential > breakage. Philip addressed this already in an earlier message [1]. > However, the Debian Mozilla team doesn't seem to be very enthusiastic about > supporting an older version of Spidermonkey in the long run. What would be > the best course of action now? I don't want to pressure upstream to port 0 > A.D. to a newer Spidermonkey version if they have no desire to do so (and I > have no clue how to port software), I can't pressure the Debian Mozilla team > to maintain an older Spidermonkey version for a single piece of software > (and I'm sure that they have a lot of other work to do), and from the > replies I've seen so far, it seems that embedding Spidermonkey code in 0 > A.D.'s source is a no-no, or at least strongly discouraged. Maybe porting to another JavaScript engine (like Google V8) is the best long-term solution? > In an earlier message [2], you suggested that various .ttf fonts > (DejaVuSans.ttf, DejaVuSansMono.ttf, texgyrepagella-regular.otf, > texgyrepagella-bold.otf) should be removed from the source package. But on > the other hand, since the fonts are source code for the glyphs, they > shouldn't be removed, right? Sorry, but I can't help but feel somewhat > confused... That was before I knew how they were being used in this package, keep them in the source package unless upstream introduces build-time or run-time text rendering. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
