Package Base Details: freedoom

Git Clone URL: (read-only)
Submitter: None
Maintainer: chungy
Last Packager: chungy
Votes: 67
Popularity: 3.660812
First Submitted: 2006-07-29 16:53
Last Updated: 2017-02-16 19:41

Packages (3)

Latest Comments

sanerb commented on 2016-12-30 16:26

this can cause failures in certain build environments.

==> Starting prepare()...
ln: failed to create symbolic link '/tmp/pkgbuild-0/freedoom2/src/freedoom1-0.10.1/freedoom-0.10.1': File exists
==> ERROR: A failure occurred in prepare().

you should either:

1.) have freedoom2, freedoom1, and freedm as totally separate packages

2.) remove the split-packaging and create one "freedoom" package that builds and installs freedoom1, freedoom2, and freedm as a unified package

3.) use ln -sf instead of ln -s (recommended regardless, so multiple iterations of packaging don't fail) (messiest but quickest)

luuuciano commented on 2016-04-21 14:52

What is the difference with freedoom1?

chungy commented on 2014-10-14 16:49

0.9 is out, and there are quite a few upstream changes that can affect packaging, namely Freedoom now supports install targets to install application icons and desktop entries, just making it simpler to launch Freedoom. This package has so far just grabbed the pre-built zips and used those, which works fine, but doing that now misses out on the other benefits.

All the same, I must warn about the caveat: Freedoom's builds are not yet deterministic and there are known ImageMagick subtleties that make a build on Arch differ from the official release (which was built on Debian Wheezy), not in any significant way, but only in how some graphics are dithered. This *might* cause issue in multiplayer ports because of the checksum will not match... there is good cause to continue grabbing the official zips for this reason. I might even suggest copying the dist directory from the source and doing all the other packaging stuff separately.

DavidK commented on 2013-05-22 23:16

Oops, fixed reference to patches.

miffe commented on 2013-05-22 23:05

I get this when building with devtools, use $srcdir instead of ../../

==> Starting prepare()...
/build/PKGBUILD: line 23: ../../patches: No such file or directory

jsteel commented on 2012-10-16 06:30

It is currently a makedepends, are you sure it is needed at run time?

Anonymous comment on 2012-10-16 05:34

deutex-devel - - should be listed as a dependency.

breed808 commented on 2012-09-15 14:42

Well, it's building for me just fine, so I'm at a loss to explain the previous build failures.

breed808 commented on 2012-09-08 15:18

Hmm, I'm managed to successfully compile the package today, but the PKGBUILD I used was identical to the one currently here. I'm going to double-check first, and if it's still good I'll unflag the package.

breed808 commented on 2012-08-21 16:58

Package needs updating, as both the problems that Ratfink and miffe described are still occuring.

miffe commented on 2012-04-11 20:56

This package need options=(!makeflags) since it fails to build when -j is >1

Ratfink commented on 2010-12-31 23:48

This package needs to be updated. Since Python is now Python 3, I'm getting lots of syntax errors. All that's needed to fix it, though, is to replace all the
#!/usr/bin/env python
lines with
#!/usr/bin/env python2
and then it would work.

Arkham commented on 2010-08-25 07:13

Url fixed.

Anonymous comment on 2010-08-17 15:52

If a package is broken does that mean it's out of date?

Why isn't there a flag broken button?

Or flag malicious?

Or flag inapropriate?

Anonymous comment on 2010-08-14 19:18

can't build, 404 not found.