On Thu, 2020-11-05 at 17:41 +0100, David Heidelberg wrote: [...] > Q: why is this package useful/relevant? > A: Sucessor of DOSBox, which is already inside Debian [...]
DOSBox seems to be under active development even though it hasn't had a release for a while. So this is an independent fork, not a successor to a dead project. (If DOSBox had become dead upstream, I would have recommended rebasing the existing dosbox source package on DOSBox Staging instead.) I think this name is also misleading. "DOSBox Staging" sounds like a development branch of the original DOSBox project, not an independent project. Are the upstream developers set on using this name or do you think they could be persuaded to use something more distinctive? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Humans are not rational beings; they are rationalising beings.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
