Update Debian packages: 1.51b, svn4538, svn stable branch?

[fabian]

Hi ZSNES devs,

I'd like to help out maintaining the zsnes 1.51 package in Debian. The package is in an overall good shape, but patches are piling up and I'd like to get the source code a bit updated. I currently see three possibilities to do so:

1) Package the 1.51b release, which was more or less inofficially announced (with sources) here:
http://board.zsnes.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11513

2) Package a snapshot of SVN r4538, which is the last known revision with working sound. It also has the version number bumped to 1.52.

3) Package a snaphot of SVN "stable" branch, which is based off of r4538 with fixes backported from trunk.

4) Stay with 1.51 until an official new tarball is released

However, the situation is a bit confusing for a newby like me. The 1.51b release was announced on May 15 2008 and is thus newer than the latest revision (r5218) in the stable branch of Mar 9 2008 and, of course, r4538 of Jan 31 2007. However, the 1.51b release does not seem to commited to SVN -- it does not even share most of the applied patches with what can be found in SVN. It's really a mess...

Now my questions are:
- Are there any known regressions of r5218 of the stable branch relative to r4538?
- Are there any known regressions of r4538 relative to the 1.51 release?
- Is there any revision that corresponds to 1.51b or did I miss something?
- Which alternative 1-4 would you use as source for a distribution package?

Thank you very much for your replies!

Best regards,
- Fabian

[grinvader]

First, a warning that I may sound demotivating but that it's not the point of my post - just information.

1) Package the 1.51b release, which was more or less inofficially announced

Why not.

2) Package a snapshot of SVN r4538, which is the last known revision with working sound. It also has the version number bumped to 1.52.

The version bump was a way for us to notice who was using a WIP, and not waste time with newly introduced bugs that we're already aware of.
There is no gain in that version over 1.51b, which actually has some later work backported into it.

3) Package a snaphot of SVN "stable" branch, which is based off of r4538 with fixes backported from trunk.

We're currently in the middle of an activity spike (however relative it may be -_-), so we're actually on it. Can you believe this ?
Sadly, in the few years since our previous attempt everything went to hell for our build system so we have plenty to do.

4) Stay with 1.51 until an official new tarball is released

We've been pretty good at this !

the latest revision (r5218)

(r5305)

It's really a mess...

1.51b is 1.51 + nach's fixes for some stuff + some backports from post-4538, iirc. Can't blame you for not finding your way (hint: there is no way).

- Are there any known regressions of r5218 of the stable branch relative to r4538?

Plenty. The whole core is currently behaving incorrectly and only works on some ROMs by various random flukes.

- Are there any known regressions of r4538 relative to the 1.51 release?

We had already tampered a bit with some stuff (including some core stuff) by that time, but I can't really call them regressions. I'd be hard-pressed to remember what exactly could have broken from it, since the issues are deeper than that anyway and weren't addressed in those revisions.

- Is there any revision that corresponds to 1.51b or did I miss something?

Nope. (Chuck Testa)

- Which alternative 1-4 would you use as source for a distribution package?

Go for 1, but it won't build as-is on most systems nowadays. We fixed that a while back in the private tree (could build on anything) but things have changed since, so... Maybe wait for 3 ?
2 is not a good idea, and 4 is already done.

Thank you very much for your replies!

Thanks for caring, much appreciated.

[Nach]

I actually gave out a v1.51c with a couple of more fixes. I might also add that some of the patches in Debian's tree are wrong.

v1.51b is a nice bet in the interim.

[fabian]

There is no gain in that version over 1.51b, which actually has some later work backported into it.

So 1.51b is to be prefered over r4538. That's good to know, thank you!

the latest revision (r5218)

(r5305)

I was talking about the "stable" branch, not trunk.

- Are there any known regressions of r5218 of the stable branch relative to r4538?

Plenty. The whole core is currently behaving incorrectly and only works on some ROMs by various random flukes.

Again, I was asking about the "stable" branch.

Go for 1, but it won't build as-is on most systems nowadays. We fixed that a while back in the private tree (could build on anything) but things have changed since, so... Maybe wait for 3 ?
2 is not a good idea, and 4 is already done.

Thanks, that's the answer I was hoping for!

[fabian]

I actually gave out a v1.51c with a couple of more fixes.

Really, where? I couldn't find it.

I might also add that some of the patches in Debian's tree are wrong.

Please point me to the wrong patches:
http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package ... .510+bz2-3

v1.51b is a nice bet in the interim.

I think we'll go for this (or 1.51c) after wheeze is released. Thankk you!

[odditude]

the latest revision (r5218)

(r5305)

I was talking about the "stable" branch, not trunk.

- Are there any known regressions of r5218 of the stable branch relative to r4538?

Plenty. The whole core is currently behaving incorrectly and only works on some ROMs by various random flukes.

Again, I was asking about the "stable" branch.

"stable" is anything but. trust grin.

[grinvader]

r5218 suffers from the post-r4538 core chaos, so if "stable" uses it, listen to odditude.

[fabian]

I actually gave out a v1.51c with a couple of more fixes.

Really, where? I couldn't find it.

I might also add that some of the patches in Debian's tree are wrong.

Please point me to the wrong patches:
http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package ... .510+bz2-3

Does anyone else know the answers to these two questions?

[Nach]

I actually gave out a v1.51c with a couple of more fixes.

Really, where? I couldn't find it.

Good question. It was a small release. Perhaps I'll make another with some backports.

I might also add that some of the patches in Debian's tree are wrong.

Please point me to the wrong patches:
http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package ... .510+bz2-3

These two:

http://patch-tracker.debian.org/patch/s ... rc32.patch
http://patch-tracker.debian.org/patch/s ... ibao.patch

Both bugs are fixed properly in our repository.

[Nach]

This is the proper fix for the libao issue.
This is the proper fix for the crc32 issue.

[fabian]

This is the proper fix for the libao issue.
This is the proper fix for the crc32 issue.

Thanks, they will be replaced in the next package revision.

BTW, you might want to apply some of the other patches we have in our repo, did you have a look?

[Nach]

BTW, you might want to apply some of the other patches we have in our repo, did you have a look?

Yes, I did.

A lot of the fixes we already have, or have signifigantly changed the code since v1.51.

In general, we look at Debian and Gentoo patches from time to time.

[grinvader]

Don't get me started on that shitty zlib mess.

[fabian]

In general, we look at Debian and Gentoo patches from time to time.

Fine, that's good to know. Fedora resp. RPM Fusion is also often worth a look:
http://cvs.rpmfusion.org/viewvc/rpms/zs ... ?root=free

While we are at it:

1) Could you please add the zsnes.xpm file into the src/icons directory? The XPM icon format is the smallest common denominator that all window managers can display.
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg ... pm;hb=HEAD

2) And please replace the src/linux/zsnes.desktop file with this one. It has been made compliant to the XDG Desktop Entry Specification and allows for starting ZSNES by clicking on a ROM file in a file manager.
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg ... op;hb=HEAD

Thank you!

[4lltim3z0ck3r]

got here a deb for 64 bit ubuntu
works like a charm on 12.04 64 bit

just wanting to share
http://www.mediafire.com/?t9jwxm965gpicv7