Am 11.09.23 um 19:11 schrieb Antoine Beaupre:
Package: bsdgames
Version: 2.17-29+b1
Severity: critical

I wonder if wtf(6) should be split in a separate package. It's a
genuinely useful package (as opposed to a "game") that I have only
discovered recently, even though I have been familiar with BSD games
for more than a few decades at this point (!).

It seems to be effectively maintained in its own fork right now, with
updates on the acronyms files maintained in debian/patches, which
... doesn't seem ideal.

Hi Antoine,

I agree, the state of bsdgames and wtf is not ideal. I'm in favor of splitting wtf into a separate package.

void-linux seem to have their own git repo for this now:

https://github.com/void-linux/netbsd-wtf

... and it seems relatively up to date. It *looks* like the upstream
source is split between:

http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/share/misc/?only_with_tag=MAIN

and:

http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/games/wtf/?only_with_tag=MAIN

... so I'm not sure how we should handle that, but maybe converging
over the above git repo would be best?

Yeah, might be an option. However, there would still be patches needed, because upstream is missing the latest changes from NetBSD and also the Debian specific acronyms. So I'm pondering whether it makes more sense to create a new "upstream" git repo for wtf in Debian. Anyway, I've created a PR to include the latest changes from NetBSD. I'll see how responsive they are. :-)

https://github.com/void-linux/netbsd-wtf/pull/3

Another upstream I found is:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/bsd-games/

... but i'm not sure how valid that actually is either.

I think this looks promising, but as you mentioned, it lacks wtf. So if wtf gets into its own package, the sourceforge codebase could be used for a new upload of bsdgames.

Arch seems to be using this as an upstream now:

https://github.com/vattam/BSDGames

See:

https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/bsd-games/

... hm, they actually use the sourceforge codebase now. Maybe that has been changed since your bug report.

Regards,
Tobias

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to