Am 16.11.2012 11:32, schrieb Jon Dowland:
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.
Maybe we should contact prboom upstream and ask if they are going to maintain prboom any further. Are you in contact with them?
I've just put some initial packaging work at git+ssh://git.debian.org/git/pkg-games/prboom+.git
It still says prboom in some places and I think prboom+ uses sdl-image, so this would be missing as a build depends. But thanks for starting it, anyway!
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 am fine with this!
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.
Hm, I think using a '+' in file names somehow feels "unclean", but I have no strong objections. We should sure keep symlinks for both notations.
Plenty more work to do…
Sure, expect me so join in as an Uploader anytime soon. ;) - Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50a61d04.9040...@greffrath.com