[Scummvm-devel] MT-32 emulator progress

[Johannes Schickel]

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 1:05 AM, Jerome Fisher
<ml_scummvm-devel_sourceforge.net at kingguppy.com> wrote:
> Hi Johannes,
>
> On 31/03/11 00:20, Johannes Schickel wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Jerome Fisher
>> <ml_scummvm-devel_sourceforge.net at kingguppy.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm happy to update the integrated version of the emulator, though I
>>> would prefer to remove that and instead detect and link with the
>>> official static link library we produce. I believe I raised this
>>> possibility on the scummvm-devel ml years ago and it was rejected,
>>> though - let me know if there's a change of heart.
>>>
>>
>> I am personally still for a in source copy of the emulator (probably
>> contributed via a patch / pull request on github). It being an
>> external library makes it rather annoying to build ScummVM, till Linux
>> distributions pick it up (if they will at all) and it's prebuilt etc.
>> Also we might slightly adapt it to our file i/o etc. more easily.
>
> It's designed so that you don't need to adapt it, even if it's directly
> embedded (which is obviously not the preferred method, but I won't argue the
> point). If it does need to be adapted in some way then we'd appreciate
> knowing about it, because that's probably an area where we can improve
> flexibility for other embedders.
>

Well that's good to hear, still IMHO it's easier for us if we just
embed the code, should be less hassle for our porters.

> Unfortunately nobody has ever upstreamed any ScummVM changes to Munt. It
> used to be that I was maintaining the ScummVM-integrated version so none of
> this really mattered, but I get the impression that I'm not wanted in this
> capacity. So I'd really like to encourage you to make the integrated version
> as similar to Munt as possible (and I'm happy to assist) so that I can
> periodically check for changes and merge them in easily.
>

I am not sure, but I think if you want to maintain our embedded
version that's fine with us (or with me at least). It's always better
to have someone with knowledge about that code in case we need to
patch it for whatever reasons.

About Munt changes in our code base, if there are any they are
probably just quite minor (like patching some stuff because of missing
newer library functions in some C libs, or stripping out unused code
(I remember stripping out some standard C library file i/o code for
example)), that should be quite easy to port back if there's any need.

// Johannes