After emerging games-misc/bsd-games on amd64 it appears that a large number of games are missing from the collection: -[✓] adventure -[✗] arithmetic -[✓] atc -[✗] backgammon -[✗] banner -[✓] battlestar -[✗] btc -[✗] boggle -[✓] caesar -[✗] canfield -[✗] countmail -[✓] cribbage -[✓] dab -[✗] dm -[✓] factor -[✗] fish -[✗] fortune -[✓] gomoku -[✗] hack -[✓] hangman -[✗] hunt -[✗] mille -[✗] monop -[✗] morse -[✗] number -[✗] phantasia -[✗] pig -[✗] pom -[✗] ppt -[✗] primes -[✗] quiz -[✗] rain -[✗] random -[✓] robots -[✓] sail -[✓] snake -[✗] tetris -[✗] trek -[✗] wargames -[✓] worms -[✗] wtf -[✓] wump By my count that's 14 games present and accounted for and 28 games missing out of an expected total of 42.
I did some digging and paraphrasing from the README in the upstream package https://github.com/msharov/bsd-games/: [1] This version has security improvements over other bsd-games versions, as this one does not install anything sgid. [2] Some games were removed or renamed due to trademark concerns, e.g., `trek` is now `spirhunt`. [3] Some games were characterized — fairly or not — as "unplayable junk" and removed. Regarding [1] I'm torn here because at a minimum the security improvements to this package are valid. I'd hate to point to another version of the package and lose the security fixes. Is it possible to convert the changes into a patch? Regarding [2], someone please correct me if I'm misinformed, but I think this is a real stretch. These games have existed for **decades** without any blowback from the trademark holders that I'm aware of. I can't speak to [3] because I haven't played any "unplayable junk" games on that list. I was confused as to why some games I knew to be in the package collection were missing but the package compiled without error. It just didn't make any sense. This at least explains the behavior. I'm just not sure what the proper course of action is. Is there a better version of this package that has the benefits of the security patch and is otherwise maintained without the downside of missing and renamed packages?
(In reply to Jeff Gazso from comment #1) > I did some digging and paraphrasing from the README in the upstream package > https://github.com/msharov/bsd-games/: > > [1] This version has security improvements over other bsd-games versions, as > this one does not install anything sgid. > [2] Some games were removed or renamed due to trademark concerns, e.g., > `trek` is now `spirhunt`. > [3] Some games were characterized — fairly or not — as "unplayable junk" and > removed. > > Regarding [1] I'm torn here because at a minimum the security improvements > to this package are valid. I'd hate to point to another version of the > package and lose the security fixes. Is it possible to convert the changes > into a patch? Regarding [2], someone please correct me if I'm misinformed, > but I think this is a real stretch. These games have existed for **decades** > without any blowback from the trademark holders that I'm aware of. I can't > speak to [3] because I haven't played any "unplayable junk" games on that > list. > > I was confused as to why some games I knew to be in the package collection > were missing but the package compiled without error. It just didn't make any > sense. This at least explains the behavior. I'm just not sure what the > proper course of action is. > > Is there a better version of this package that has the benefits of the > security patch and is otherwise maintained without the downside of missing > and renamed packages? I'm not aware of one. We could just mask this version given it has several downsides and just continue to update the Debian version. Or move this version into a new package. Fedora has some patches for it (the old one) too but I don't know if they duplicate Debian's changes or not: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bsd-games/blob/rawhide/f/bsd-games.spec.
> I'm not aware of one. We could just mask this version given it has several > downsides and just continue to update the Debian version. Or move this > version into a new package. Okay, I'll dig into this as time permits. I'll compare the Fedora and Debian patch sets against the original upstream files and think this through. Some of the patches are no doubt duplicate. At a glance there appear to be patches original to each project as well. Being the new guy here I have to ask, to what extent is it permissible to grab patches like these from other projects and re-use them? I don't want to unintentionally break any rules.
