Re: game-data-packager changes pending
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:33:36 +0000, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:20:58AM -0400, Michael Gilbert
> wrote:
> > if i'm not mistaken, most of the game-data packages add
> > suppplemental data, rather than core data. i.e. doom-wad
> > adds more data than doom-sharware; and prboom, etc will
> > still work without doom-wad. so in a sense that data
> > isn't depended on, but actually enhances the existing
> > package data.
>
> I'm afraid you are mistaken. the game data packages provide
> core data, which are alternatives to doom-wad-shareware and
> freedoom, as appose to supplementing them. prboom (and
> chocolate-doom) will not function without something
> providing 'doom-wad', be it generated by game-data-packager,
> or provided from freedoom (for prboom in main) or
> doom-wad-shareware (for chocolate-doom, thus relegated to
> contrib)
>
> That is, with doom-wad-shareware installed, you can run
> chocolate-doom or prboom; but if you have another doom-wad
> installed (via gdp) you do not need doom-wad-shareware (and
> it is not used at the same time/in the same session as
> another set of data)
so, i probably should have stated that i'm actually thinking about the
problem from a hypothetical perspective; not necessarily with the
current behavior of gdp in mind, but instead in terms of what i think
would be more ideal.
for the cases where packages don't have core data to begin with,
the launch scripts could tell the user that the game data is missing,
and that they should use gdp to load it to the right place.
obviously, doing anything this drastically different would be quite an
undertaking, and i can't expect anyone else to do that work. i've
actually been considering implementing an alternative to gdp for a
while now, and i'm getting the motivation to start implementing it now.
best wishes,
mike
Reply to: