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
