FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Games

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-01-2008, 07:55 PM
Jason L Tibbitts III
 
Default wesnoth 1.4

>>>>> "JC" == Jon Ciesla <limb@jcomserv.net> writes:

JC> Even to preserve other existing functionality, i.e. network play?

Yes, because that functionality doesn't break due to the fact that an
update was pushed. I feel that taking an affirmative action to break
things is worse than taking no action and having other things broken.

If you like, push an update that, when started, opens a dialog
explaining the situation. It is also theoretically possible to push a
wesnoth14 package which users could install after removing the
existing package, but that gets a bit complicated and isn't really
pleasant.

- J<

_______________________________________________
Fedora-games-list mailing list
Fedora-games-list@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-games-list
 
Old 04-01-2008, 08:02 PM
"Jon Ciesla"
 
Default wesnoth 1.4

>>>>>> "JC" == Jon Ciesla <limb@jcomserv.net> writes:
>
> JC> Even to preserve other existing functionality, i.e. network play?
>
> Yes, because that functionality doesn't break due to the fact that an
> update was pushed. I feel that taking an affirmative action to break
> things is worse than taking no action and having other things broken.
>
> If you like, push an update that, when started, opens a dialog
> explaining the situation. It is also theoretically possible to push a
> wesnoth14 package which users could install after removing the
> existing package, but that gets a bit complicated and isn't really
> pleasant.

So it'd be preferable to leave it in rawhide, add something to the release
notes for F9, and call it done?

> - J<
>


--
novus ordo absurdum

_______________________________________________
Fedora-games-list mailing list
Fedora-games-list@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-games-list
 
Old 04-01-2008, 08:17 PM
Jason L Tibbitts III
 
Default wesnoth 1.4

>>>>> "JC" == Jon Ciesla <limb@jcomserv.net> writes:

JC> So it'd be preferable to leave it in rawhide, add something to the
JC> release notes for F9, and call it done?

Well, remember that this is my personal opinion, molded by experiences
with one of my packages. You as the maintainer need to weigh all of
the issues; how much harm is done when a save game is invalidated? In
my case, users could have played for weeks. If you lose a save of a
single Wesnoth battle then there might not be such a significant
problem.

You definitely want to get the new version into F9, though. My
upstream asked me to push a CVS snapshot just to get the save-breaking
changes out previous to F9.

- J<

_______________________________________________
Fedora-games-list mailing list
Fedora-games-list@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-games-list
 
Old 04-02-2008, 12:28 PM
"Jon Ciesla"
 
Default wesnoth 1.4

>>>>>> "JC" == Jon Ciesla <limb@jcomserv.net> writes:
>
> JC> So it'd be preferable to leave it in rawhide, add something to the
> JC> release notes for F9, and call it done?
>
> Well, remember that this is my personal opinion, molded by experiences
> with one of my packages. You as the maintainer need to weigh all of
> the issues; how much harm is done when a save game is invalidated? In
> my case, users could have played for weeks. If you lose a save of a
> single Wesnoth battle then there might not be such a significant
> problem.

True. Thinking back to my heavier gaming days, if I'd suddenly lost my
city in SimCity 2000, there would have been blood.

> You definitely want to get the new version into F9, though. My
> upstream asked me to push a CVS snapshot just to get the save-breaking
> changes out previous to F9.

It's already in F9. I'll think I'll just add something to the F9 release
notes, and leave the koji build for F8 to succumb to eventual garbage
collection.

Thanks everyone for the input!

> - J<
>


--
novus ordo absurdum

_______________________________________________
Fedora-games-list mailing list
Fedora-games-list@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-games-list
 
Old 04-05-2008, 05:26 PM
Bruno Wolff III
 
Default wesnoth 1.4

I wanted to add some other notes to this thread since there was at least
some hint of back porting.
First is that there was some discussion a while back that Wesnoth should
try to put out major stable releases about every 6 months instead of about
every year. This means the save game versus network play issues are going
to be coming up more often.

Another thing to note is that the wesnoth build system has a way to
override the preferences directory (that includes saved games) so that
you can reasonably have multiple versions installed at the same time that
don't conflict. I do this since I do a lot of build testing with typically
the last stable release tree and trunk. (Though recently I have separate
installs for testing automake builds and scons builds separately.)

While I don't know if the current maintainer would want to do this, but
it certainly be possible for the maintainer to use versioned install
locations and preference locations, so that players could finish up
their existing games with the older version while still being able to
play multiplayer games with the current version.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-games-list mailing list
Fedora-games-list@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-games-list
 
Old 04-21-2008, 03:14 AM
Warren Togami
 
Default wesnoth 1.4

I am personally disappointed that we would avoid upgrading wesnoth in
order to maintain saved game compatibility. I believe that maintaining
the ability to play on the network is more important.

This also brings up a few new problems:

1) What about security maintenance? A security hole could be found in
1.2.8 either client or server. Will upstream continue to maintain that
version? If so, for how long?

2) It was suggested in the bodhi ticket that users of older
distributions should use a manual 3rd party repository in order to
obtain a newer save-game incompatible version of wesnoth. This method
seems undesirable to me for a number of additional reasons (guaranteeing
that users of this repo actually get updates, security considerations).

3) Keeping Fedora versions on older wesnoth releases might be less of a
problem due to the only ~13 month lifecycle. But what about wesnoth in
EPEL? Big can of worms.

4) Downloadable content (maps, campaigns, etc.) for the older version
became abandoned and more scarce as 1.4.x supplanted 1.2.x. New wesnoth
users in the coming months will be increasingly frustrated that content
they see on the websites/forums do not match what is available/usable in
Fedora. This increases the perception that Fedora is not properly
maintaining wesnoth, and perhaps you want to use another distro instead.

There are a number of difficult drawbacks and hoops we have to jump
through if we refuse to upgrade wesnoth to the latest stable as a matter
of policy. Is this refusal worth these many drawbacks?

Perhaps we should upgrade wesnoth to the latest stable, and provide the
current older version *somewhere else* unsupported in case people want
to play their older save games. The release notes of the update and
elsewhere (wesnoth.org and fedora wiki) can mention how to downgrade and
avoid yum upgrades.

I realize this is a balancing act, but the reasons against upgrading are
in the minority compared to the benefits both short and long-term.

Warren Togami
wtogami@redhat.com

_______________________________________________
Fedora-games-list mailing list
Fedora-games-list@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-games-list
 
Old 04-21-2008, 04:26 AM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default wesnoth 1.4

Warren Togami <wtogami@...> writes:
> I am personally disappointed that we would avoid upgrading wesnoth in
> order to maintain saved game compatibility. I believe that maintaining
> the ability to play on the network is more important.

There are still servers for 1.2, and in fact you automatically get redirected
to one when you try connecting to the default server with a 1.2.x version. (I
tried it a few hours ago.) There are few people on it, that's sure. But the
server does exist.

> 1) What about security maintenance? A security hole could be found in
> 1.2.8 either client or server. Will upstream continue to maintain that
> version? If so, for how long?

That's a good question. On the other hand, security fixes can be backported,
and there might even be other people (e.g. Debian) doing the work for us.

> 2) It was suggested in the bodhi ticket that users of older
> distributions should use a manual 3rd party repository in order to
> obtain a newer save-game incompatible version of wesnoth. This method
> seems undesirable to me for a number of additional reasons (guaranteeing
> that users of this repo actually get updates, security considerations).

To me, it looks like the best solution. There are arguments both for upgrading
to 1.4 and for keeping 1.2. If there's a repository on e.g. fedorapeople.org
with 1.4, it allows users to make an informed choice.

And of course, there's also the option to upgrade to Fedora 9 which is around
the corner, though that may be undesirable for other reasons, which is the
point of a backport repository.

> 3) Keeping Fedora versions on older wesnoth releases might be less of a
> problem due to the only ~13 month lifecycle. But what about wesnoth in
> EPEL? Big can of worms.

You have to be even more careful with upgrading things in EPEL. People who use
an enterprise distribution really don't want the software to break things under
them.

> 4) Downloadable content (maps, campaigns, etc.) for the older version
> became abandoned and more scarce as 1.4.x supplanted 1.2.x. New wesnoth
> users in the coming months will be increasingly frustrated that content
> they see on the websites/forums do not match what is available/usable in
> Fedora. This increases the perception that Fedora is not properly
> maintaining wesnoth, and perhaps you want to use another distro instead.

On the other hand, there's a lot of existing content for 1.2 which users may
have already downloaded and which will break with the upgrade. Not only the
savegames are backwards-incompatible, but also all the downloaded content. And
there isn't even always a 1.4 version available (and even if that was the case,
redownloading dozens of addons is a PITA).

> There are a number of difficult drawbacks and hoops we have to jump
> through if we refuse to upgrade wesnoth to the latest stable as a matter
> of policy. Is this refusal worth these many drawbacks?

This isn't just a matter of policy. Breaking savegames in an update to a stable
distribution isn't something to be taken lightly. Sure, if you primarily play
multiplayer, you'll want to always have the latest version because that's what
most people on the multiplayer servers will be running, but if you primarily
play campaigns, you really don't want an automated upgrade breaking all your
savegames and all the third-party campaigns you had installed! Campaigns are
something you can be playing for weeks. Wesnoth isn't just a multiplayer
client!

> Perhaps we should upgrade wesnoth to the latest stable, and provide the
> current older version *somewhere else* unsupported in case people want
> to play their older save games. The release notes of the update and
> elsewhere (wesnoth.org and fedora wiki) can mention how to downgrade and
> avoid yum upgrades.

Upgrading by default and providing the older version elsewhere is only feasible
if they can be installed in parallel and if the new version is changed to use a
versioned data directory so the existing savefiles will work with the compat
package. Or at the very least the older version provided elsewhere has to use a
higher Epoch than the official package, but IMHO that's an ugly hack.

You can't really expect end users to:
1. manually downgrade a package and
2. manually exclude the package from upgrades.

> I realize this is a balancing act, but the reasons against upgrading are
> in the minority compared to the benefits both short and long-term.

I disagree, for reasons explained above (Wesnoth isn't only networked
multiplayer).

I'm usually in favor of upgrading applications to the latest versions (I like
how Fedora usually does that) unless there's a good reason not to, but IMHO
game upgrades which break savegame compatibility are such a good reason, and in
this case, there's also the issue of downloadable content. It's not like Fedora
9 is so far away.

Kevin Kofler

_______________________________________________
Fedora-games-list mailing list
Fedora-games-list@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-games-list
 
Old 04-21-2008, 02:05 PM
"Jon Ciesla"
 
Default wesnoth 1.4

> Warren Togami <wtogami@...> writes:
>> I am personally disappointed that we would avoid upgrading wesnoth in
>> order to maintain saved game compatibility. I believe that maintaining
>> the ability to play on the network is more important.
>
> There are still servers for 1.2, and in fact you automatically get
> redirected
> to one when you try connecting to the default server with a 1.2.x version.
> (I
> tried it a few hours ago.) There are few people on it, that's sure. But
> the
> server does exist.
>
>> 1) What about security maintenance? A security hole could be found in
>> 1.2.8 either client or server. Will upstream continue to maintain that
>> version? If so, for how long?
>
> That's a good question. On the other hand, security fixes can be
> backported,
> and there might even be other people (e.g. Debian) doing the work for us.
>
>> 2) It was suggested in the bodhi ticket that users of older
>> distributions should use a manual 3rd party repository in order to
>> obtain a newer save-game incompatible version of wesnoth. This method
>> seems undesirable to me for a number of additional reasons (guaranteeing
>> that users of this repo actually get updates, security considerations).
>
> To me, it looks like the best solution. There are arguments both for
> upgrading
> to 1.4 and for keeping 1.2. If there's a repository on e.g.
> fedorapeople.org
> with 1.4, it allows users to make an informed choice.
>
> And of course, there's also the option to upgrade to Fedora 9 which is
> around
> the corner, though that may be undesirable for other reasons, which is the
> point of a backport repository.
>
>> 3) Keeping Fedora versions on older wesnoth releases might be less of a
>> problem due to the only ~13 month lifecycle. But what about wesnoth in
>> EPEL? Big can of worms.
>
> You have to be even more careful with upgrading things in EPEL. People who
> use
> an enterprise distribution really don't want the software to break things
> under
> them.
>
>> 4) Downloadable content (maps, campaigns, etc.) for the older version
>> became abandoned and more scarce as 1.4.x supplanted 1.2.x. New wesnoth
>> users in the coming months will be increasingly frustrated that content
>> they see on the websites/forums do not match what is available/usable in
>> Fedora. This increases the perception that Fedora is not properly
>> maintaining wesnoth, and perhaps you want to use another distro instead.
>
> On the other hand, there's a lot of existing content for 1.2 which users
> may
> have already downloaded and which will break with the upgrade. Not only
> the
> savegames are backwards-incompatible, but also all the downloaded content.
> And
> there isn't even always a 1.4 version available (and even if that was the
> case,
> redownloading dozens of addons is a PITA).
>
>> There are a number of difficult drawbacks and hoops we have to jump
>> through if we refuse to upgrade wesnoth to the latest stable as a matter
>> of policy. Is this refusal worth these many drawbacks?
>
> This isn't just a matter of policy. Breaking savegames in an update to a
> stable
> distribution isn't something to be taken lightly. Sure, if you primarily
> play
> multiplayer, you'll want to always have the latest version because that's
> what
> most people on the multiplayer servers will be running, but if you
> primarily
> play campaigns, you really don't want an automated upgrade breaking all
> your
> savegames and all the third-party campaigns you had installed! Campaigns
> are
> something you can be playing for weeks. Wesnoth isn't just a multiplayer
> client!
>
>> Perhaps we should upgrade wesnoth to the latest stable, and provide the
>> current older version *somewhere else* unsupported in case people want
>> to play their older save games. The release notes of the update and
>> elsewhere (wesnoth.org and fedora wiki) can mention how to downgrade and
>> avoid yum upgrades.
>
> Upgrading by default and providing the older version elsewhere is only
> feasible
> if they can be installed in parallel and if the new version is changed to
> use a
> versioned data directory so the existing savefiles will work with the
> compat
> package. Or at the very least the older version provided elsewhere has to
> use a
> higher Epoch than the official package, but IMHO that's an ugly hack.
>
> You can't really expect end users to:
> 1. manually downgrade a package and
> 2. manually exclude the package from upgrades.
>
>> I realize this is a balancing act, but the reasons against upgrading are
>> in the minority compared to the benefits both short and long-term.
>
> I disagree, for reasons explained above (Wesnoth isn't only networked
> multiplayer).
>
> I'm usually in favor of upgrading applications to the latest versions (I
> like
> how Fedora usually does that) unless there's a good reason not to, but
> IMHO
> game upgrades which break savegame compatibility are such a good reason,
> and in
> this case, there's also the issue of downloadable content. It's not like
> Fedora
> 9 is so far away.

I've been asked by multiple parties off-list in the past weeks, including
Warren, to upgrade F-8 to 1.4. Warren has also asked for F-7. I also
feel that F-9 is not far off (though now moreso). As a former SimCity
2000 player with a city over 5 million people, I understand the value of
saved games. I see from poking around that upstream intends to break
savegame compatibility again for 1.6, though possibly for the last time.

There really is no good answer here. I, like Warren, love that Fedora is
usually the (b)leading edge of FLOSS software, especially games. I also,
like Kevin, loathe the idea of breaking anything for users without a
really compelling reason. I've found no way to convert a 1.2 save to a
1.4 save, and it sounds like in the larger group of Wesnoth players,
inside and outside of Fedora, there is equal division between those
wanting to keep compatibility and those wanting to move forward.

I've been mulling over the best way to handle this in the last few days,
and I'm leaning toward a repo on fp.o for 1.4 for F-8. I can take the
koji builds for F-8, create a repo and an rpm for it, rsync it to fp.o,
and place a link to the whole business to my wiki page and send something
to f-announce.

A bad solution, but, I think, the one most satisfying whilst endangering
the fewest kittens.

Thoughts?

> Kevin Kofler
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fedora-games-list mailing list
> Fedora-games-list@redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-games-list
>


--
novus ordo absurdum

_______________________________________________
Fedora-games-list mailing list
Fedora-games-list@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-games-list
 
Old 04-22-2008, 03:07 AM
Callum Lerwick
 
Default wesnoth 1.4

On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 09:05 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> A bad solution, but, I think, the one most satisfying whilst endangering
> the fewest kittens.
>
> Thoughts?

I think this is a situation where we have to bite the bullet and
maintain multiple parallel installable versions.
_______________________________________________
Fedora-games-list mailing list
Fedora-games-list@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-games-list
 
Old 04-22-2008, 06:08 PM
Benny Amorsen
 
Default wesnoth 1.4

Callum Lerwick <seg@haxxed.com> writes:

> I think this is a situation where we have to bite the bullet and
> maintain multiple parallel installable versions.

I really don't think there will be many users who need BOTH savegame
compatibility with 1.2 AND multiplayer 1.4. IMHO the people who need
multiplayer in Fedora 8 should just yum --enablerepo=development
upgrade wesnoth. Similarly, users who need 1.2-compatibility in Fedora
9 should install the Fedora 8 package. I just checked, and there
aren't any dependencies which could make this a serious problem.

Multiple parallel installations invariably go wrong somehow. unison is
the latest example of that.


/Benny


_______________________________________________
Fedora-games-list mailing list
Fedora-games-list@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-games-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:25 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org