On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 3:04 AM, Paul Wise <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? > > Hmmm, I've never thought of porting 0 A.D. to an entirely different JS engine as an option. Is V8's API relatively stable compared to Spidermonkey?
> > 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. > > All right, I'll leave the fonts in the source tarball then. - Vincent
