Am 16.10.2015 um 21:41 schrieb Alexandre Detiste: > Le vendredi 16 octobre 2015 21:03:25, vous avez écrit : >> Control: tags -1 patch pending >> >> I added support for Planescape: Torment. I think I will file a wishlist >> bug report against gemrb. It would be nice if the configuration files >> already contained the paths to the g-d-p data. > > I've digged gemrb a bit, > [...] > It seems that the gemrb package is a shared runtime needed by the > gemrb-baldurs-gate, gemrb-baldurs-gate-2 packages... > > So in G-D-P the engine: tag should have this "gemrb-baldurs-gate" value > instead of a plain "gemrb" so that apt 1.1 pull the right set of dependencies. > > Now, the wording of the generated long package description could > be special-cased to make it less weird. > > + if 'gemrb' in engine: > + engine = 'gemrb' > long_desc += ' Intended for use with: ' + engine
Hi,
that's a good suggestion. I will change that for all gemrb games. I also
agree with the package description patch, good idea.
> Further, I don't understand the split between "gemrb" & "libgemrb",
> if those two 'any' package must always be present together & at the same
> version;
> couldn't they be merged in on package ?
Beats me. Perhaps we should CC Beren Minor (maintainer of gemrb) ?
>> paths to the g-d-p data.
>
> I suggest the path to be /usr/share/gemrb/baldurs-gate-1,
> that would a symlink to /usr/share/gemrb/baldurs-gate-1-{en|de|fr|..}
>
> Does the alternatives mechanism handle directories too ?
Puh, I don't think so. Binaries can be handled by the alternative
mechanism... but directories? I think we should keep the current naming
scheme /usr/share/gemrb/baldurs-gate-1-{en|de|fr|..}. This ensures that
the user can install multiple versions in parallel. He only has to
change the /etc/gemrb/[game].conf file and set GamePath to one of these
directories.
>> Something weird is going on when I run
>
> I'll try it !
Ok. Thank you. :)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
