<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Paul Wise <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pabs@debian.org" target="_blank">pabs@debian.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Vincent Cheng <<a href="mailto:vincentc1208@gmail.com" target="_blank">vincentc1208@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Similar to why 0 A.D. needs libenet 1.2; Philip explained earlier that 0<br>
> A.D. needs a specific version of Spidermonkey (1.8.5) in order to maintain<br>
> compatibility, since it uses advanced Spidermonkey features and users with<br>
> different versions of Spidermonkey may run into issues in multiplayer games<br>
> (as an<br>
<br>
</div>as an ?<br>
<div><br></div></blockquote><div>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].</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
> Just wanted some clarification; if upstream chooses not to implement a build<br>
> system where fonts are converted into glyphs/bitmaps during the build, and<br>
> instead stick with pre-rendered glyphs in the source package, it would be ok<br>
> to simply strip out the fonts, and not have to package them separately as<br>
> you suggested in an earlier mail?<br>
<br>
</div>No, since the fonts are the source code for those images and we have DFSG #2.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br></font></blockquote></div>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...<br>
<div><br></div><div>- Vincent</div><div><br></div><div>[1] <a href="http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-games/2011/04/msg00038.html">http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-games/2011/04/msg00038.html</a></div><div>[2] <a href="http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-games/2011/04/msg00030.html">http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-games/2011/04/msg00030.html</a></div>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">