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.
> [i.e.: avoid circular dependencies].
>
> IMHO, a user will select an engine, not data.
I do not think so. 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, not the engine.
>> The latter is covered
>> by two different names, 'boom-wad' and 'doom-wad'.
>
> I'm confused. A single virtual package ('doom-engine')
> should handle two incompatibles engines?
No, boom-wad and doom-wad are the data packages. Doom is the original
game from id Software; boom is a fully-free set of data to implement a
different game (with the same engine).
--
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
-- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
