Re: Fw: Re: FCEUX
Hi John,
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 9:55 AM, John Arntz <jsarntz(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I was able to contact someone from upstream, and I got the reply
below. What is the proper way to proceed if upstream is unwilling to use the system
library? Should we drop lua support all together? I know you said the lua features are
what make fceux stand out as a good emulator, but I'm not sure we can have it, if
upstream is unwilling to use system libraries.
Your only choice is to patch fceux yourself to use system lua. I know
this is a PITA, but we have good reasons for this. I'll explain them
below.
--- On Sat, 1/16/10, Matthew Gambrell <mgambrell(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> From: Matthew Gambrell <mgambrell(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: FCEUX
> To: "John Arntz" <jsarntz(a)yahoo.com>
> Date: Saturday, January 16, 2010, 2:23 PM
> For issue 1, nothing I can do about that,
> although we are currently considering how to better
> communicate with people since mailing lists are apparently
> not reliable. I'll let you know when we change
> anything.
>
> For issue 2, I suggest you investigate the way lua is
> commonly used and what it is intended for, specifically the
> way it is meant to be compile-time customized and embedded
> in programs. Your distro's policy is not applicable to
> lua, and if they are applying it, then they are wrong, and
> you need to argue with them about that. In general, what
> are we supposed to do if we are using a library that has
> been heavily modified? Wouldn't we have no choice but to
> drop it into our source tree?
The reason because we want to use system libraries is that it is much
better to have just a single copy of a library instead of having
1,000's. What if a bug (or a security bug) is found in this library?
In the first case you have to update it only in one place. In the
latter case, well, welcome to hell.
Moreover, as I already said, they are using the same exact upstream
lua, but they use a "private" header file that it is not supposed to
be used by external applications.
> For issue 3, this hasn't stopped any number of other
> distros from packaging fceux. Perhaps you should see how
> theyve dealt with it. In fceux, it is not such a big deal
> since there are only two applications really, but what are
> larger projects with more buildable targets in their source
> tree supposed to do? Cut a dozen tarballs out of the source
> tree?
What other distros? For example Debian uses the same rule we use about
bundled libraries and there is no fceux in Debian.
I cannot find a single RPM based distro that ships fceux:
http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=fceux
Bye,
Andrea.