> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/games
