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

Packaging for X/SVGA/Console



As part of my new-maintainer process tasks, I'm packaging z81, a
Sinclair ZX81/ZX80 emulator.  The emulator provides three binaries: a
X version (xz81), an SVGA version (z81) and a linux-console version
(z81txt).

I have a few questions about how to properly package these.

First, about the X version.  Debian Policy 12.8 reads (in part):

    Programs that may be configured with support for the X Window
    System must be configured to do so and must declare any package
    dependencies necessary to satisfy their runtime requirements when
    using the X Window System, unless the package in question is of
    standard or higher priority, in which case X-specific binaries may
    be split into a separate package, or alternative versions of the
    package with X support may be provided.[24]

I've given the z81 package priority 'optional', since this seems to be
the priority given to other emulator packages (e.g., simh, dosemu);
I would thus read the above passage as a stricture *against* building
separate packages for the X and SVGA versions (three in all).  Can
someone confirm this?  (And/or provide justification?)

My inclination (and that of my AM as well) was to build split
packages, but it looks like we're wrong.


Second, the text mode version isn't an ncurses program, but instead
uses /dev/vcsa0 - which I don't actually have!  I do have /dev/vcsa
and /dev/vcsa1-63, but no 0.  According to the z81 documentation,
these devices "linux virtual consoles" (but are somehow different from
/dev/ttyN ??), but I don't seem to have a man page.

Should I point the console version at /dev/vcsa instead?  Help!


Christopher Allen

-- 
Christopher Allen               .   +         . -===""===-  c====  . 
email: cpcallen@ruah.dyndns.org         *   .         . \ \____}}    
WWW:   http://ruah.dyndns.org/~cpcallen/        .   *    @====-'  .  
snail: 29 Young St. W., Waterloo, ON, N2L 2Y9 Canada  .          *   



Reply to: