Bug#518199: debian-policy: virtual package names for doom-related packages

["Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@debian.org>]

Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 11:03:57AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> > Jon Dowland wrote:
> > > A brief explanation as to their meaning. Doom games are
> > > divided into engine and world-resource components. The
> > > former is captured by 'doom-engine'.
> > I don't understand why we need a 'doom-engine' virtual package.
> > [i.e.: avoid circular dependencies].
> >
> > IMHO, a user will select an engine, not data.
>
> I do not think so. The game data defines what game you play; the engine
> defines _how_ you play it. Personally, I couldn't care less how exactly
> a game is run on my system, as long as it is a game I like. IOW, the
> data is what the user will choose, not the engine.
>
> > > The latter is covered
> > > by two different names, 'boom-wad' and 'doom-wad'.
> > I'm confused. A single virtual package ('doom-engine')
> > should handle two incompatibles engines?
>
> No, boom-wad and doom-wad are the data packages.

Yes, I mean:
a 'boom-wad' should depend on the virtual engine: 'doom-engine',
a 'doom-wad' should depend on the virtual engine: 'doom-engine'.
but not all doom-engines support boom data. This was my confusion:
two virtual package on data side, but only one engine virtual package.

So an usage example would help me ;-)


> Doom is the original
> game from id Software; boom is a fully-free set of data to implement a
> different game (with the same engine).

I know. I think some very old kernel release announces has references to
the big final monsters.

ciao
	cate