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

Re: plans for doom packages

On 28/06/13 14:55, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Where should this wrapper live? In the *-wad packages generated by
> game-data-packager?

I believe Gustavo's proposal is that each engine provides an alternative
for doom and an alternative for doom2? Something like this:

    /usr/bin/doom2 -> /etc/alternatives/doom2
    /etc/alternatives/doom2 -> /usr/lib/prboom/doom2
    $ cat /usr/lib/prboom/doom2
    exec /usr/bin/prboom -iwad /usr/share/games/doom/doom2.wad

This makes it fractionally easier to run Doom 1 or 2 from a
command-line... I can't see much advantage apart from that.

I don't think game-data-packager's output should contain anything like a
wrapper script that is likely to have bugs or (implementable!) feature
requests, because we don't really have a way to keep users' copies of
those packages updated.

For quake there is a wrapper in the contrib quake/quake-server packages,
which are the only user-visible part of the package: the individual
Quake engines aren't in $PATH at all (and aren't intended to be run
directly), and the g-d-p-generated data package isn't directly useful
either. The quake is what provides the (Debian and Freedesktop) menu
entries and icons, and the quake-server package provides the sysvinit

quake3 is similar, except that there's no choice of engine, just ioquake3.


Reply to: