Messages

If you want to figure this out: I would start with the MIDI example program (exmidi.c) that comes with Allegro 4 and try to get that to work first.

Allegros DIGMID does not output midi (to Timidity or whatever), it uses the patches to output the audio itself. I could not get Allegro to output midi either.

It uses Allegros built in midi player. You just need a file with patches, as described in the readme.

Which Linux distribution?

Thusly, I would be ever so grateful if you would give these a test-drive on Wheezy for me (we don't support Squeeze, right?).

I'll do that next week. The only reason this might not work on Squeezy is the lower libc version 2.11 vs. 2.13.

I think antialiasing is provided by DirectX on Windows and if it works on mobile platforms then by OpenGL. The Linux engine uses software rendering.

liballegro4.2-dev contains the dev files of Allegro 4.4.

You have to install liballegro4.2-dev. Please read debian/README.md.

EDIT: Nevermind, I saw now that the filter will maybe be relicensed under LGPL.

Yes, but that would make AGS effectively GPL licensed. CJ doesn't want that: http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=43383.0

I came with this:

Looks good, exept maybe the last sentence (unnecessary) and the extra newline after the Inno Setup paragraph. The Inno Setup paragraph is also the least important one. I would move it to the end.

Are there any people who have a grasp on licenses stuff?
Following is license agreement from the AGS 3.2.1 setup program. What change should be made there to reflect current situation?

It should state the license and where to get the source code. The paragraph "NO MONEY WHATSOEVER MAY BE CHARGED..." should be removed. It contradicts the Artistic License 2.0 which allows a distribution fee.

Personally I would remove all the text in caps, because there is no reason anybody could imply a warranty anyway. Or replace it by something shorter like "This package is distributed without any warranty, without even the implied warranty of merchantibility or fitness for a particular purpose."

Forget distclean. I forgot that this is a custom Makefile. Looks like a Ubuntu fuckup.

build-essential is installed right?

EDIT: There's just /usr/include/c++/4.6/i686-linux-gnu/bits/c++config.h and /usr/include/i386-linux-gnu/c++/4.7/bits/c++config.h. Does make distclean; ./configure fix it?

Second, I've built a new distributable ags+libraries

Great! Was the process documented well enough? Did you make sure to build the 32 bit executable with rpath "lib32"? If you use the debian stuff to build in a chroot, that works by setting the  environment variable DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=rpath=lib32

I must confess that I am not sure I understood the idea behind using odd/even numbers for public/development versions (the need to do such thing).

When the source is publicly available, every git commit will be used by someone. Right now there are many different git commits where the version is 3.30. So when someone says he uses 3.30, we don't know exactly what code he used. When we use even version numbers for releases, then we know that someone who says he used say 3.32 used exactly the released version, while someone with version 3.31 used some intermediate development version.

As someone working on a Linux distribution I think the only important thing about version numbers is that they are strictly increasing. If the previous version really was 3.2.1 and not 3.21, maybe 3.3.0 is ok, but I would use 3.30 to be sure.

It was both 21 and 2.1 before and 30 is larger than both 21 and 2.

Because 30 > 21 > 3 and we don't want to go backward.

Call both 3.30.0?