Bug#559132: Bug#690905: freedoom: Prboom Plus should be used instead of Prboom
retitle 690905 ITP: prboom-plus thanks The prboom-plus package is mostly ready. I am merely waiting for upstream to release a new version and then I need to clean up debian/copyright a bit. - 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/51237077.1020...@greffrath.com
Processed: Re: Bug#690905: freedoom: Prboom Plus should be used instead of Prboom
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: retitle 690905 ITP: prboom-plus Bug #690905 [wnpp] RFP: prboom-plus Bug #559132 [wnpp] RFP: prboom-plus -- doom-engine extended from prboom Changed Bug title to 'ITP: prboom-plus' from 'RFP: prboom-plus' Changed Bug title to 'ITP: prboom-plus' from 'RFP: prboom-plus -- doom-engine extended from prboom' thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 559132: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=559132 690905: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=690905 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- 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/handler.s.c.136127699728580.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#690905: freedoom: Prboom Plus should be used instead of Prboom
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:15:16AM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote: I have currently started improving the packaging a bit and found the package name really confusing and distracting. Could we please rename the package to prboom-plus just as upstream calls the project itself? We could, of course, keep the symlinks to prboom+ binary and manpage, but as a Debian package name I find it really unsuitable. That's disappointing. The idea of the package being prboom-plus really rankles with me, e.g. imagine if bonnie++ was bonnie-plus-plus, libstdc++6 libstdc-plus-plus-6 etc. However packaging practicalities are important. Let me look over your commits today and then I'll get back to you whether I'm happy to rename it or not. -- 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/20121130103806.GD5807@debian
Bug#690905: freedoom: Prboom Plus should be used instead of Prboom
Am 30.11.2012 11:38, schrieb Jonathan Dowland:
That's disappointing. The idea of the package being prboom-plus
really rankles with me, e.g. imagine if bonnie++ was bonnie-plus-plus,
libstdc++6 libstdc-plus-plus-6 etc. However packaging practicalities
are important. Let me look over your commits today and then I'll
get back to you whether I'm happy to rename it or not.
I see your point, but the projects you mention do indeed call
themselves with a '+' character, whereas in prboom{+,-plus} I found
inconsistent use with a precedence towards the '-plus' variant:
$ grep -ir 'prboom+' prboom+/* | wc -l
30
$ grep -ir 'prboom-plus' prboom+/* | wc -l
246
- 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/50b88e6c.5050...@greffrath.com
Bug#690905: freedoom: Prboom Plus should be used instead of Prboom
Am 30.11.2012 11:46, schrieb Fabian Greffrath: $ grep -ir 'prboom+' prboom+/* | wc -l 30 $ grep -ir 'prboom-plus' prboom+/* | wc -l 246 Sorry, that was misleading, a significant amount of these appearances were from the debian/ directory: $ grep -ir 'prboom+' prboom+/* | grep -v '/debian/' | wc -l 15 $ grep -ir 'prboom-plus' prboom+/* | grep -v '/debian/' | wc -l 218 - 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/50b89223.2000...@greffrath.com
Bug#690905: freedoom: Prboom Plus should be used instead of Prboom
Am 16.11.2012 11:32, schrieb Jon Dowland: I've just put some initial packaging work at git+ssh://git.debian.org/git/pkg-games/prboom+.git I have currently started improving the packaging a bit and found the package name really confusing and distracting. Could we please rename the package to prboom-plus just as upstream calls the project itself? We could, of course, keep the symlinks to prboom+ binary and manpage, but as a Debian package name I find it really unsuitable. - 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/50b735b4.2000...@greffrath.com
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… -- 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/20121116103235.GA25250@debian
Bug#690905: freedoom: Prboom Plus should be used instead of Prboom
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
Bug#690905: freedoom: Prboom Plus should be used instead of Prboom
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:01:24PM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote: 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? Why not. I haven't been for a while but I'll happily fire them off an email. -- 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/20121116111749.GC25250@debian
Bug#690905: freedoom: Prboom Plus should be used instead of Prboom
Am 16.11.2012 12:17, schrieb Jon Dowland: Why not. I haven't been for a while but I'll happily fire them off an email. Thanks for taking care of that! -- 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/50a634e8.4010...@greffrath.com
Bug#690905: freedoom: Prboom Plus should be used instead of Prboom
Am 22.10.2012 17:14, schrieb Jon Dowland: 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. I am still indifferent about these two. While prboom's latest release has been four years ago, prboom has been at least updated last year, so there's three years of development between the two. According to this excellent review, both are equally fine in retaining the original doom feeling, leaving fancy things like dynamic lights et al to ports like vavoom and doomsday: http://www.flaterco.com/kb/DOOM/PrBoom-Plus.html I'd like to move forward with packaging prboom-plus, but I find it unacceptable to maintain two forks of such similarity in Debian... - 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/50a2365d.6040...@greffrath.com
Bug#690905: freedoom: Prboom Plus should be used instead of Prboom
Am 23.10.2012 22:34, schrieb Jon Dowland: Ah yes, that's right. Since prboom updates so infrequently, I guess that code has not been exercised in years. I should probably adapt it into a get-orig-source debian/rules rule. Actually we should probably rebuild prboom.wad upon every package build, just to make sure the code doesn't rot further. That sounds like a very good idea. A few weeks ago we have implemented something similar for the funguloids package, which also needed to get its data file rebuilt (not for DFSG-related reasons but because of compatibility issues with ogre). The result is in pkg-games SVN and currently stuck in the NEW queue. The downside is, we'd have a lot more Build-Depends: deutex, sng, imagemagick, gsfonts-x11 and freedoom. And the latter depends on boom-engine, so we might get stuck in a circular Build-Depends. :/ - 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/5087aa43.1030...@greffrath.com
Bug#690905: freedoom: Prboom Plus should be used instead of Prboom
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 05:47:18PM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote: It seems that prboom has incorporated some features of MBF, including support for a player-friendly dog that follows the player through the levels (yes, WTF). The sprites for that dog have apparently been taken from the wolf3d data and were thus non-free. So these are removed from the prboom pwad. Ah yes, that's right. Since prboom updates so infrequently, I guess that code has not been exercised in years. I should probably adapt it into a get-orig-source debian/rules rule. Actually we should probably rebuild prboom.wad upon every package build, just to make sure the code doesn't rot further. Additionally, some of the menu entries in prboom seem to have been constructed from the font featured in the original game. They are replaced by hand-crafted menu entries using transparent pixmaps. I have already taken the opportunity to beatify these entries a bit to my personal taste in GIT. I hope you don't mind. ;) That's right - no, no problem. Looks much better, thanks! -- 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/20121023203433.GB25000@debian
Bug#690905: freedoom: Prboom Plus should be used instead of Prboom
Am 19.10.2012 10:44, schrieb Jon Dowland: For some reason I've never been motivated to package prboom+ myself. I'm not sure why, I think mostly because I've been quite happy with prboom for my light usage. It should be a pretty trivial package, however. You could more-or-less reuse the debian/ dir from the prboom package with very few changes. This sure sounds interesting, especially the full mouse look which I am missing from the original prboom port. 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? 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? - 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/5084f966.8090...@greffrath.com
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. -- 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/20121022151400.GB6671@debian
Bug#690905: freedoom: Prboom Plus should be used instead of Prboom
Am 22.10.2012 17:14, schrieb Jon Dowland:
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.
Thanks for the explanation. So we should keep both packages
co-installable and have them both provide the /usr/bin/{b,d}oom
executables as per the alternatives system.
I'll take a look, I can't remember what it does :)
I think I've found out myself.
It seems that prboom has incorporated some features of MBF, including
support for a player-friendly dog that follows the player through the
levels (yes, WTF). The sprites for that dog have apparently been taken
from the wolf3d data and were thus non-free. So these are removed from
the prboom pwad.
Additionally, some of the menu entries in prboom seem to have been
constructed from the font featured in the original game. They are
replaced by hand-crafted menu entries using transparent pixmaps. I
have already taken the opportunity to beatify these entries a bit to
my personal taste in GIT. I hope you don't mind. ;)
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.
Sounds neat, but I have no experience with that. :/
- 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/50856a86.8030...@greffrath.com
Processed: Re: Bug#690905: freedoom: Prboom Plus should be used instead of Prboom
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: reassign 690905 wnpp Bug #690905 [freedoom] freedoom: Prboom Plus should be used instead of Prboom Bug reassigned from package 'freedoom' to 'wnpp'. Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #690905 to the same values previously set Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #690905 to the same values previously set retitle 690905 RFP: prboom-plus Bug #690905 [wnpp] freedoom: Prboom Plus should be used instead of Prboom Changed Bug title to 'RFP: prboom-plus' from 'freedoom: Prboom Plus should be used instead of Prboom' severity 690905 wishlist Bug #690905 [wnpp] RFP: prboom-plus Ignoring request to change severity of Bug 690905 to the same value. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 690905: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=690905 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- 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/handler.s.c.135062966523183.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#690905: freedoom: Prboom Plus should be used instead of Prboom
forcemerge 690905 559132 thanks On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 08:59:15AM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote: thanks for your suggestion. However, prboom-plus is not yet packaged for Debian, so I am turning this bug report into a RFP (request for packaging). Someone has requested this before (similar method, bug against prboom that time) so I'll merge the requests. For some reason I've never been motivated to package prboom+ myself. I'm not sure why, I think mostly because I've been quite happy with prboom for my light usage. It should be a pretty trivial package, however. You could more-or-less reuse the debian/ dir from the prboom package with very few changes. -- 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/20121019084404.GA31737@debian
Processed: Re: Bug#690905: freedoom: Prboom Plus should be used instead of Prboom
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: forcemerge 690905 559132 Bug #690905 [wnpp] RFP: prboom-plus Bug #559132 [wnpp] RFP: prboom-plus -- doom-engine extended from prboom Merged 559132 690905 thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 559132: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=559132 690905: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=690905 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- 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/handler.s.c.135063625111847.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
