Google
  Web www.spinics.net

Re: Netpanzer

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> Jon Ciesla wrote:
>>>> With release 0.8.2, upstream has merged the program and data
>>>> tarballs. I'm thinking of merging netpanzer-data into netpanzer and
>>>> obsoleting
>>>> netpanzer-data.  Any objections?
>>>>
>>> Isn't the netpanzer data large and not subject to as much change as the
>>> engine?  If so, there are still reasons to keep the data separate from
>>> the game engine.
>>>
>>
>> If upstream distributes things in one tarbal, they should be in one
>> SRPM, and then splitting is no use.
>>
> It is of use to end users.  Not having to redownload the data everytime
> the game engine is updated is a win for end users.
>
> The downside is that you end up with two SRPMs of equal size (due to the
> new tarball containing the data files both for the data and the engine
> package).
>
>> Also AFAIK netpanzer doesn't get frequent package updates.
>>
> That's been my experience in the past as well.  But the real question is
> whether the data files are updated at the same frequency as the
> engine... which has several permutations as well:
>
> 1) Does upstream update the data files when they release a new netpanzer
> tarball or do releases get made where the data files are unchanged?

I recall a release of code and no update to data. Once.

> 2) Is the package maintainer going to backport changes from upstream
> ever?  ie: if a segfault or security vulnerability were discovered in
> netpanzer, will you backport a fix from upstream instead of
> waiting for them to make their next release?

I generally go with the new release, as upstream seems to respond fairly
quickly.

> If these cases occur then end users will appreciate only having to get a
> new version of the engine without having to download the data.

Agreed, but I think they do not, often anyway, for netpanzer.

> - -Toshio
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFG1ap0X6yAic2E7kgRAhBIAJ9K82wxcTNnVeBLkSXpncYc/8R5FgCdFf8v
> 8hmH1En6fJh/8Sbq+LzoGgg=
> =puCA
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --
> Fedora-maintainers mailing list
> Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
>


-- 
novus ordo absurdum

--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers

--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly

[Home]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]

Powered by Linux

Google
  Web www.spinics.net