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 the doom packages
most likely are private, cooperating packages, I can't see
a reason why we shouldn't submit the names anyway.
I couldn't find an existing group within the file to which
the names belong, so my patch creates a new one, "Games and
A brief explanation as to their meaning. Doom games are
divided into engine and world-resource components. The
former is captured by 'doom-engine'. The latter is covered
by two different names, 'boom-wad' and 'doom-wad'. There is
a need for two because 'freedoom' -- open source doom game
data -- uses features that were not available in the
original doom engine, but in a derivative called 'boom'.
Boom features are widely supported in the engines out
there, but not exclusively. All the engines in Debian so
far support the boom feature set, so this has not been an
issue. However, at least two popular engines do not:
"doomsday" (a 3D, wizzy-graphics one, which has certainly
been packaged outside of debian) and "chocolate-doom",
which aims to behave as close to the original doom as
The distinction between boom-wad and doom-wad opens the door
for packaging chocolate-doom (which I have had on my TODO
list since late etch). The existing doom packages
transitioned towards using boom-wad within the Lenny cycle.