Bug#690905: freedoom: Prboom Plus should be used instead of Prboom
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 09:44:38AM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Is prboom-plus considered the successor of prboom or is it just a
> more actively developed fork? In Debian words "Should prboom-plus
> have Replaces: prboom"?
It was originally a fork of prboom maintained by someone completely
independently of prboom. It later moved into the prboom SVN, but is still
managed as a separate project. I think there is some cross-pollination
and code flows between the two. However, prboom+ make large, sweeping and
perhaps 'risky' changes which prboom don't immediately incorporate. IIRC
prboom+'s main focus is absolute DOOM.EXE/DOOM2.EXE compatibility, including
some crazy/brilliant ideas like simulating the behaviour of buffer overflows
and underruns from the DOS environment, so old demos playback perfectly. It
has turned out that prboom+ is more actively developed and releases more
often than prboom. When I first looked at it, before it moved into the same
SVN, it was awkward to build in Linux (the developer being Windows-focussed).
That has no doubt changed.
> Regarding the packaging: I had a look at the current packaging for
> prboom and I am not sure I understand what we do in
> debian/fix_upstream.sh and why we do it. Will this be necessary for
> prboom-plus as well, could you elaborate a bit on it?
I'll take a look, I can't remember what it does :)
I had wondered whether this would be an opportunity to use 'git svn clone' on
the SVN and keep the full upstream history in VCS, rather than import tarballs.
Reply to: