[gentoo-user] Wesnoth version

[gentoo-user] Wesnoth version

[Marko Kocić]

Is there a specific reason why gentoo doesn't provide development
versions of Battle for Wesnoth (games-strategy/wesnoth)?

I couldn't find anything in bug database. Development versions (1.3.2)
are pretty stable, so I can't see a reason why are not included in
"~x86". As for "x86", 1.2.4 (latest stable) seems ok.

Should I open a bug for that?

Thanks,
Marko
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Wesnoth version

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1231 bytes --]

On Saturday 05 May 2007, "Marko Kocić" <marko.kocic@gmail.com> wrote 
about '[gentoo-user] Wesnoth version':
> Is there a specific reason why gentoo doesn't provide development
> versions of Battle for Wesnoth (games-strategy/wesnoth)?
>
> I couldn't find anything in bug database. Development versions (1.3.2)
> are pretty stable, so I can't see a reason why are not included in
> "~x86". As for "x86", 1.2.4 (latest stable) seems ok.
>
> Should I open a bug for that?

Yeah, a new numbered release deserves it's own ebuild, even if it has to 
linger in package.mask.  Make sure it's been 2-3 days after the release 
and then file a version bump bug.  Please report if "simply renaming" the 
existing ebuild works and/or what you had to change to get a clean 
compile/install.

If you follow Wesnoth closely, but aren't part of upstream, you might 
consider becoming a/the gentoo package maintainer for it.  IIRC, IMHO, the 
packaging for Wesnoth could use a little "love".

-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
bss03@volumehost.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/     

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Wesnoth version

[Marko Kocić]

On 5/5/07, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <bss03@volumehost.net> wrote:
> Yeah, a new numbered release deserves it's own ebuild, even if it has to
> linger in package.mask.  Make sure it's been 2-3 days after the release
> and then file a version bump bug.  Please report if "simply renaming" the
> existing ebuild works and/or what you had to change to get a clean
> compile/install.

Simple renaming worked on my "~x86" system. I haven't noticed nothing
suspicious so far.

> If you follow Wesnoth closely, but aren't part of upstream, you might
> consider becoming a/the gentoo package maintainer for it.  IIRC, IMHO, the
> packaging for Wesnoth could use a little "love".

I agree that Wesnoth woul need more "love", but I don't qualify as
official maintainer of Wesnoth package simply because I have never
looked into the code. But if "let's try to rename ebuild and see what
happens when the new version is released", I'll be glad to help by
sending reports to this list.

Thanks,
Marko
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Wesnoth version

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 760 bytes --]

On Saturday 05 May 2007, "Marko Kocić" <marko.kocic@gmail.com> wrote 
about 'Re: [gentoo-user] Wesnoth version':
> [I]f "let's try to rename ebuild and see what
> happens when the new version is released", I'll be glad to help by
> sending reports to this list.

Better to file version-bump bugs to b.g.o.  Reporting/complaining here is 
less likely to produce results.  Remember to wait 2-3 days after the 
official release date before filing a bug; give the maintainer a little 
time to do the bump him/herself.

-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
bss03@volumehost.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/     

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]