[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

changes to the doom-wad virtual package

Hi all,

Whilst preparing chocolate-doom for upload, I realised a
glaring issue with the current use of the doom-wad virtual

doom-wad is currently used to specify an IWAD, and is
provided by freedoom in main. However. freedoom is a "boom
compatible IWAD" and cannot be played by anything that lacks
boom support. (boom was a derivation of doom which added new
features and became somewhat of a standard).

This has not been a problem with the three engines in main
so far (lxdoom, prboom, doom-legacy) because they've all had
boom support. But chocolate-doom and jdoom (external to
debian still atm) do not. I don't know if EDGE does or not,
another engine external to debian, it does not appear to.

Upstream for jdoom are implementing boom support but it is a
design criteria of chocolate-doom to _not_ differ from the
original doom wherever possible.

We therefore need a pair of virtual packages.

I propose doom-wad is kept and used to mean "a vanilla-doom
compatible IWAD" and a new boom-wad virtual package is added
to describe an IWAD which requires boom. This would require
the following changes:

prboom changed so that 
	Depends: freedoom | doom-wad | boom-wad

lxdoom also. I/we need to talk to Joe Drew about lxdoom.
It's not a games-team package atm, it could be, but afaik it
is pretty much supersceded by prboom upstream.

freedoom changed so it Provides: boom-wad

no changes to doom-wad-shareware (not a games-team package)
no changes to chocolate-doom, edge, jdoom

I'd also have to set Conflicts: so that packages were
upgraded lock-step.

Any objections? I'll implement the changes and build new
packages, and update doom-packaging with the new guidelines
within the next few days.

Jon Dowland

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: