Re: mvdsv, a QuakeWorld server (ITP: #862954)
Hi Simon,
thanks for your verbose reply!
Simon wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 at 18:54:17 +0200, Lee Garrett wrote:
>> mvdsv is a Quakeworld server, and will be the first one packaged in
>> Debian.
>
> It's entirely possible that some of our Quake servers are Quakeworld
> rather than NetQuake servers already: I hadn't really intended to
> distinguish between protocol variants in any systematic way when I set up
> the mini-policy. If mvdsv can accept (and maybe ignore) the parameters
> "-dedicated", "-basedir DIR" and optionally "-hipnotic" or "-rogue",
> and run some sort of server for some sort of Quake-ish client, then it's
> a perfectly acceptable quake-engine-server alternative: I didn't intend
> quake-engine-server to imply that the server is fully compatible with
> the original Quake netcode, only that it's a server for the Quake game
> (as opposed to, I don't know, Nexuiz or something).
>
> quakespasm and darkplaces use different directories (~/.quakespasm and
> ~/.darkplaces respectively) so it already matters which one you're using.
> I think whether it uses NetQuake protocol or Quakeworld protocol or some
> other incompatible protocol on its listening port is another reasonable
> axis of variation between quake-engine-server implementations, and I
> suspect quakespasm and darkplaces-server are already incompatible in
> this way.
So do you think I should do this distinction with virtual package names?
Or rather change it to "Provides: quake-engine-server"?
>
> I think this is what we have at the moment:
>
> * quakespasm (no dedicated server executable, but the client can be run
> as a dedicated server)
> - apparently supports NetQuake (-protocol 15), FitzQuake (-protocol 666)
> and RMQ (-protocol 999) protocols, if that's any help...
>
> * darkplaces (has a dedicated server)
> - appears to support protocol 15 (NetQuake), 28 (QuakeWorld) and a whole
> pile of Darkplaces-specific protocol numbers, but not FitzQuake or RMQ
> that I can see (and I don't know which one is the default)
>
> * ezquake (client only?)
Ah, that's entirely possible, though I haven't tested it. I don't think
those binaries get any real world use as a dedicated server, so I can
imagine that there is some bit rot.
>
>> Once it's in unstable I intend to make changes to game-data-packager to
>> produce a quakeworld-server package that ships a systemd unit, similar
>> to how it's done for quake-server.
>
> I think making it easier to choose an engine per instance of the instanced
> systemd unit is probably a better solution than separating Quakeworld
> from everything else, even if you think it's going to be common to run
> both NetQuake and Quakeworld servers on the same machine.
>
> smcv
Good point, I'll consider doing that.
Are there any show stoppers from uploading mvdsv? If not, I'll upload it
to NEW tomorrow.
Happy fragging,
Lee
Reply to: