Re: plans for doom packages
On 06/28/2013 01:13 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On 28/06/13 14:55, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>> Where should this wrapper live? In the *-wad packages generated by
no, in each engine package, each engine "registers" itself by wrappers.
vavoom would create 8 wrappers
other engines could register more or less wrappers depending on what
they do run
wrappers should live in /usr/lib/$engine/$wrapper (IMHO, as vavoom does)
> 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
that is exactly what i want to propose, thanks for making it clear for
> This makes it fractionally easier to run Doom 1 or 2 from a
> command-line... I can't see much advantage apart from that.
main advantage i see is we cover from different switches on different
engines, the current ones and the future ones
> 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.