Doom engines
 

Hi

Vavoom has already been packaged for a long time in Fedora and uses
autodownloader for enabling users to use the shareware data easily. I
have recently packaged a alternative Doom engine called Chocolate Doom
[2] which is a more conservative port that aims to be more compatible
with mods. I could package other Doom engines out there including
odamex[2], some of them unique. It doesn't make much sense to
duplicate the autodownloader related files. Debian has some guidelines
[3] What would be the best way to handle this?

References:

1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730851
2. http://odamex.net/
3. http://pkg-games.alioth.debian.org/doom-packaging/

Rahul
_______________________________________________
games mailing list
games@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/games

Doom engines
 

> Hi
>
> Vavoom has already been packaged for a long time in Fedora and uses
> autodownloader for enabling users to use the shareware data easily. I
> have recently packaged a alternative Doom engine called Chocolate Doom
> [2] which is a more conservative port that aims to be more compatible
> with mods. I could package other Doom engines out there including
> odamex[2], some of them unique. It doesn't make much sense to
> duplicate the autodownloader related files. Debian has some guidelines
> [3] What would be the best way to handle this?
>
> References:
>
> 1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730851
> 2. http://odamex.net/
> 3. http://pkg-games.alioth.debian.org/doom-packaging/

Disclaimers, I've not looked at any of this, and I use prboom. :)

My memory of autodownloader is that it checks for the existence of some
file, if it's there, it does nothing and runs the program, and if not, if
downloads it and then runs the program. Could we not do this is such a
way that chocolate uses the same directory stucture for the user-specific
downloaded files as vavoom does? If not, we could at least use vavoom's
structure for the autodownloader portion and symlink from the places
chocolate expects. Then, even if the user uses chocolate first, if they
run vavoom as is currently packaged, it sees what it wants and Bob's your
uncle.

Does this make sense?

-J

> Rahul
> _______________________________________________
> games mailing list
> games@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/games
>


--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

_______________________________________________
games mailing list
games@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/games

Doom engines
 

On 08/20/2011 08:48 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> Then, even if the user uses chocolate first, if they run vavoom as is
> currently packaged, it sees what it wants and Bob's your uncle. Does
> this make sense? -J

You are asking the user to install two different engines then because
the autodownloader files are part of vavoom package.

Rahul
_______________________________________________
games mailing list
games@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/games

Doom engines
 

> On 08/20/2011 08:48 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>> Then, even if the user uses chocolate first, if they run vavoom as is
>> currently packaged, it sees what it wants and Bob's your uncle. Does
>> this make sense? -J
>
> You are asking the user to install two different engines then because
> the autodownloader files are part of vavoom package.

No, I'm not. The files vavoom would want the user to download are not
owned by the vavoom package, they're in the user's ~, are they not?

> Rahul
> _______________________________________________
> games mailing list
> games@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/games
>


--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

_______________________________________________
games mailing list
games@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/games

Doom engines
 

On 08/20/2011 11:08 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> No, I'm not. The files vavoom would want the user to download are not
> owned by the vavoom package, they're in the user's ~, are they not?

I am talking about doom-shareware.desktop and doom.autodlrc and you are
talking about the data it downloads

Rahul
_______________________________________________
games mailing list
games@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/games

Doom engines
 

> On 08/20/2011 11:08 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>> No, I'm not. The files vavoom would want the user to download are not
>> owned by the vavoom package, they're in the user's ~, are they not?
>
> I am talking about doom-shareware.desktop and doom.autodlrc and you are
> talking about the data it downloads

Right. I'm saying each RPM could have it's own versions of those two
files, which use the same paths in the user's ~.

> Rahul
> _______________________________________________
> games mailing list
> games@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/games
>


--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

_______________________________________________
games mailing list
games@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/games

Doom engines
 

On 08/20/2011 11:22 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:



On 08/20/2011 11:08 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:


No, I'm not. The files vavoom would want the user to download are not
owned by the vavoom package, they're in the user's ~, are they not?


I am talking about doom-shareware.desktop and doom.autodlrc and you are
talking about the data it downloads


Right. I'm saying each RPM could have it's own versions of those two
files, which use the same paths in the user's ~





Now we are going in a bit of a circle. * To reiterate what I asked in the first mail,* I am asking if there is a better alternative to just duplicating these files?* Why?* Because I just built a vavoom update and had to fix doom.autodlrc because one of the mirrors was not valid anympore.* Now if there are multiple engines packaged, such a fix would have to be propagated across three or more packages depending on how many "ports" aka different doom engines gets packaged.*


Rahul





_______________________________________________
games mailing list
games@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/games

Doom engines
 

> On 08/20/2011 11:22 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>
> On 08/20/2011 11:08 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>
> No, I'm not. The files vavoom would want the user to download are not
> owned by the vavoom package, they're in the user's ~, are they not?
>
> I am talking about doom-shareware.desktop and doom.autodlrc and you are
> talking about the data it downloads
>
> Right. I'm saying each RPM could have it's own versions of those two
> files, which use the same paths in the user's ~
>
> Now we are going in a bit of a circle. To reiterate what I asked in the
> first mail, I am asking if there is a better alternative to just
> duplicating these files? Why? Because I just built a vavoom update and
> had
> to fix doom.autodlrc because one of the mirrors was not valid anympore.
> Now
> if there are multiple engines packaged, such a fix would have to be
> propagated across three or more packages depending on how many "ports" aka
> different doom engines gets packaged.

I thought you meant duplicating the data files only. You could put the
autodlrc in a -common package for one of the engines that both require.
Make it so chocolate would require vavoom-data-common or whatever, as
would vavoom, but chocolate wouldn't require vavoom proper.

> Rahul
> _______________________________________________
> games mailing list
> games@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/games


--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

_______________________________________________
games mailing list
games@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/games

Doom engines
 

On 08/20/2011 11:39 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote
> I thought you meant duplicating the data files only.

I did clarify again what I meant in my previous mail.

> You could put the
> autodlrc in a -common package for one of the engines that both require.
> Make it so chocolate would require vavoom-data-common or whatever, as
> would vavoom, but chocolate wouldn't require vavoom proper.

doom.autodlrc is not specific to vavoom. So don't see why a common data
package would be called that.

Rahul
_______________________________________________
games mailing list
games@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/games

Doom engines
 

> On 08/20/2011 11:39 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote
>> I thought you meant duplicating the data files only.
>
> I did clarify again what I meant in my previous mail.
>
>> You could put the
>> autodlrc in a -common package for one of the engines that both require.
>> Make it so chocolate would require vavoom-data-common or whatever, as
>> would vavoom, but chocolate wouldn't require vavoom proper.
>
> doom.autodlrc is not specific to vavoom. So don't see why a common data
> package would be called that.

That's not a requirement, just a way to get away with not making a
separate SRPM. That might be best, actually, maybe doom-shareware-data or
somesuch?

If you want to make it, I can review it.

-J

> Rahul
> _______________________________________________
> games mailing list
> games@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/games
>


--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

_______________________________________________
games mailing list
games@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/games