Hi! * Oliver M. Bolzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050407 04:35]:
> I've tried the ppracer package on AMD64 and they work great. Nice to hear :) > As tuxracer is totally dead upstream and ppracer is in my eyes > the proper successor, I'd like to proceed to get the current tuxracer packages > removed from sarge and provide current users a transition path to ppracer. > > I need to recheck, but AFAIK the procedure for ppracer to superceed > tuxracer is > > 1. Upload a ppracer package with Replace/Conflict: tuxracer And Provides, as I have been told Conflict and Provides should be versioned. > 2. Afterwards, upload an empty tuxracer package with Depends: ppracer Yes. > How do you feel about proceeding in this direction ? I know the time is > tight to make it into sarge, but it would IMHO definetly benefit our > users to have an upgrade path to an actively maintained game instead of > the famous but totally outdated original tuxracer. I'm a bit unsure, since: a) ppracer has not yet hit testing. b) tuxracer works (and it is high unlikely that we need to touch it again before sarge is released or as long as sarge is stable). c) I would need to do something with the tuxracer-extras package. Since I'm still waiting for arm, mips and m68k builds of ppracer (which theoretical could bring a releace critical FTBFS bug), and since the last call for uploads has been sent, I think we should wait a couple of more days. Well, I think I should ask the release team for their opinion on it. Yours sincerely, Alexander PS: Note to myself: If we make a tuxracer -> ppracer transistation, don't forget to look at the open tuxracer bugs.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
