Bug#690905: freedoom: Prboom Plus should be used instead of Prboom
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 01:00:29PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> I'd like to move forward with packaging prboom-plus, but I find it
> unacceptable to maintain two forks of such similarity in Debian...
Long term I think I probably agree with you. We should probably not
have both in jessie. But, I'd like to give prboom+ a proper evaluation
before I'd consider dropping prboom - so I think they should coexist
prior to the next release, so prboom+ gets plenty of exposure in
Debian.
I've just put some initial packaging work at
git+ssh://git.debian.org/git/pkg-games/prboom+.git
I had hoped we could use the upstream VCS rather than import tarballs, but
sadly they have not tagged/branched their most recent releases. At least this
way, I've only imported tarballs that have been filtered via fix_upstream.sh
(forked from prboom's version) so the VCS content is DFSG-clean too.
I've opted for prboom+ as the binary/source package name, rather than
"prboom-plus". Upstream use different ones in different circumstances,
but as long as + is valid in debian package names I don't see why we
shouldn't use it. The upstream binary name is prboom-plus, so I've put
in a symlink for prboom+ since I don't like it when binary package names
don't correspond to the supplied binary name (where possible). I haven't
yet done the symlink for the manpage too.
Plenty more work to do…
Reply to: