Hello Ben,
I asked about possibility of changing name and the final reply is [1].
Quoting dreamer:
Right now, we are fighting to convince users (and developers) to move
on from using a myriad of tiny DOSBox forks (link - very incomplete,
there are ~50 other dead forks I know of) or maintain their own
patchsets based on 10-year old 0.74. We have already certain (hard
thought for) recognition and community formed up - changing name at
this point will only cause confusion and hurt the project's prospects
for future.
[1]
https://github.com/dosbox-staging/dosbox-staging/issues/703#issuecomment-723178233
Best regards
David Heidelberg
On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 21:52, Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 2020-11-05 at 17:41 +0100, David Heidelberg wrote:
[...]
Q: why is this package useful/relevant?
A: Sucessor of DOSBox, which is already inside Debian
[...]
DOSBox seems to be under active development even though it hasn't had
a
release for a while. So this is an independent fork, not a successor
to a dead project. (If DOSBox had become dead upstream, I would have
recommended rebasing the existing dosbox source package on DOSBox
Staging instead.)
I think this name is also misleading. "DOSBox Staging" sounds like a
development branch of the original DOSBox project, not an independent
project. Are the upstream developers set on using this name or do you
think they could be persuaded to use something more distinctive?
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Humans are not rational beings; they are rationalising beings.