Re: doom (sorry)
This is all unneccesary. The doom source code has been released, doom would
be in debian but for a minor licence problem. Get libc6 .debs of it at
http://kitenet.net/programs/debs.cgi#doom
Daniel Martin wrote:
> Frankie <frankie@skunkpussy.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
> > Daniel Martin wrote:
> > >
> > > Frankie <frankie@skunkpussy.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> > >
> > > > I have just d/l doom shareware version, unfortunately, it wants
> > > > libXt.so.3 for the X version, and the svga version wants libc.so.4.
> > > >
> > > > What packages are these in?
> > > > I had a look in oldlibs, but I'm not entirely sure what I should look
> > > > for, so O didn't find anything.
> > >
> > > You want the xlib-compat package. I believe that this package has
> > > finally disappeared from Debian 2.1, though, so you'll need a 2.0
> > > (hamm) archive or CD.
> >
> > I have the cheapbytes 2.0 CD, and that doesn't seem to have an
> > xlib-compat package on it. :-(
> >
> > Any ideas where else I might look?
>
> Sorry; It's called xcompat, but you're right - I can't find it in 2.0
> at all. You may have to go back to 1.3.1 to find it. Assuming you
> can't find someone with a 1.3.1 CD, you can get the xcompat and libc4
> packages (which I just pulled off my bo CD) from:
> http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~dtm12/
>
> md5sums:
>
> c3c4652f43e110de58fe4cec2a22771d xcompat_3.1.2-4.deb
> e161434c2d952ffce8c286d9343ff45a libc4_4.6.27-15.deb
>
> Unfortunately, I can't include the sources to these packages, as I
> happen to have... misplaced my bo source CD.
>
> Why, you may ask, were these packages dropped from Debian? Well,
> basically, because a.out is such an ancient binary format that it
> should really be forgotten, and all of the support tools necessary to
> make it work make continuing support of a.out format a somewhat
> onerous burden.
>
> Besides, these packages can't be built with the current Debian tools,
> so it would take some amount of work to bring them up to the state
> where they could be included again - it's not merely a matter of
> taking on a whole load of rarely-used packages.
>
> That said, I've been wondering why one of those emulators we've got
> floating around couldn't be made to run libc4 a.out format...
--
see shy jo
Reply to: