Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
The most recent version of this proposal was:
--8---cut here---start-8---
--- virtual-package-names-list.txt~ 2009-03-15 18:19:17.0 +
+++ virtual-package-names-list.txt 2009-03-15 18:20:00.0
On Thu, Sep 10 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
The most recent version of this proposal was:
--8---cut here---start-8---
--- virtual-package-names-list.txt~ 2009-03-15 18:19:17.0 +
+++ virtual-package-names-list.txt2009-03-15
Hi,
The most recent version of this proposal was:
--8---cut here---start-8---
--- virtual-package-names-list.txt~ 2009-03-15 18:19:17.0 +
+++ virtual-package-names-list.txt 2009-03-15 18:20:00.0 +
@@ -179,6 +179,17 @@
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
The most recent version of this proposal was:
--- virtual-package-names-list.txt~ 2009-03-15 18:19:17.0 +
+++ virtual-package-names-list.txt2009-03-15 18:20:00.0 +
@@ -179,6 +179,17 @@
scheme-srfi-55
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 06:55:31PM +, Jon Dowland wrote:
You are quite right; when a doom engine is added providing
doom-engine, which does *not* support boom features, you
could end up with an unplayable combination by installing
freedoom and having the doom-engine dependency satisfied
Jon Dowland wrote:
A brief explanation as to their meaning. Doom games are
divided into engine and world-resource components. The
former is captured by 'doom-engine'.
I don't understand why we need a 'doom-engine' virtual package.
[i.e.: avoid circular dependencies].
IMHO, a user will select
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 11:03:57AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Jon Dowland wrote:
A brief explanation as to their meaning. Doom games are
divided into engine and world-resource components. The
former is captured by 'doom-engine'.
I don't understand why we need a 'doom-engine' virtual
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 11:03:57AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Jon Dowland wrote:
A brief explanation as to their meaning. Doom games are
divided into engine and world-resource components. The
former is captured by 'doom-engine'.
I don't understand why we need a
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 01:27:31PM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
a 'boom-wad' should depend on the virtual engine: 'doom-engine',
a 'doom-wad' should depend on the virtual engine: 'doom-engine'.
but not all doom-engines support boom data. This was my confusion:
two virtual package on data
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 11:46:48AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst
wrote:
The game data defines what game you play; the engine
defines _how_ you play it. Personally, I couldn't care
less how exactly a game is run on my system, as long as it
is a game I like. IOW, the data is what the user will
choose,
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 11:03:57AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Jon Dowland wrote:
A brief explanation as to their meaning. Doom games are
divided into engine and world-resource components. The
former is captured by 'doom-engine'.
I don't understand why we need a 'doom-engine' virtual
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.0.1
Severity: wishlist
Hello, please find attached a patch which adds some virtual
package names used by doom-related packages to the
authorative list in policy.
Although the rules are that private, cooperating packages
can use names outside of this list, and
12 matches
Mail list logo
