Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi All,
I'm currently working on upgrading asc (Advanced Strategic Command) to
2.0.1.0 When packaging asc-1.16.4.0, I also packaged SDLmm-0.1.8 and
paragui-1.0.4.
While packaging SDLmm I had to backport several fixes from a copy
included in asc to the package, as SDLmm is very much dead upstream.
With 1.16.4.0, paragui was not included so the packaging of it was
needed, and I packaged the then already old version 1.0.4, as that is
what asc 1.16.4.0 wanted.
Now with asc-2.0 there are yet again bugfixes to the included
SDLmm-0.1.8, now I can port these to the external SDLmm package, and
patch asc to use the external SDLmm. But since SDLmm upstream has been
dead for a long time, and asc is the only user of SDLmm, this feels
rather silly. So I would like to declare SDLmm dead for current devel
(F-9 and later) and just use the included copy.
asc-2.0 now uses paragui-1.1.8, which is the latest release from 2004
(again very dead upstream, website is down, etc.) and again has it
heavily patched. Unfortunately some idiot ran indent on there copy, so
doing a diff results in 30000 changed lines. I could go through these
manually and port any fixes to the official paragui, and patch asc to
use the system version. But again asc is the only user, so doing this
feels really silly (going through a 30000 lines diff is no fun). So I
would like to declare paragui dead for current devel (F-9 and later)
also, and just use the included copy.
Are there any objections against this?
If upstream is dead, we should call it dead. Trying to port patches
sort of makes us upstream and if we don't have anyone willing to be
upstream, is not an option. Your plan seems OK to me.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
