Talk:Source port


Where is the definition of a Source port? 10:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is an interesting philosophical question. Fredrik 10:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Should the Commodore 64 and Spectrum versions of Doom be mentioned here? I don't know where should they belong. DrJones 15:07, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I would ask the same question about the iPod port; also, the Sega Dreamcast port is listed in the bibliography and the main text, but apparently Insertwackynamehere doesn't think we should ever have an article about it — why is that?   Ryan W 16:58, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Uh, the answer to the second question is that nxDoom is the Dreamcast port.  How embarrassing.   Ryan W 01:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Additional discussion on this point is here, though in that thread I don't see consensus that any of the three programs is or is not meant as a serious port.  Hopefully someone with more testing experience will eventually research it for us (my Windows machine still isn't working quite right anyway).    Ryan W 16:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Mac clarification[edit]

If anyone cares, that is: I know that there are relatively few Mac doomers. However, stuff in the 'Mac' section could be any combination of

  • macos9 / powerpc
  • macosx native / powerpc
  • macosx native / x86
  • macosx x11 / powerpc
  • macosx x11 / x86

(I expect you could probably get a port to the m68k, but afaik macos was on powerpc before doom was actually released...)

I read in our PrBoom article, and its bibliography, that PrBoom has had no official Macintosh releases.  Since it's an open-source program, yes, someone could theoretically have compiled it for Mac OS X — but if so, where is it?    Ryan W 09:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

New platforms?[edit]

This Wikipedia article claims that somebody has released a version of Doom for the Sony PSP.    Ryan W 03:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Update: Check here for a few new ports which may or may not exist (the link goes to a specific revision of the article, assuming those sections get erased at some point for non-notability).    Ryan W 07:25, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
More: TI calculators can run Doom.  (Maybe I live under a rock, but I remember seeing a proof-of-concept vid years ago, in which the doomguy couldn't do much but people got excited about the progress, and then nothing.)    Ryan W 17:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Move proposal[edit]

There's no reason to use a plural for the title of this article. It forces a redirect or alternate text for cases that want to use the singular. An admin would need to get rid of the source port redirect page first, though. The page should also start by describing what a source port is in singular. It may include a list, but it's also an article about source ports. Who is like God? 02:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Except for the intro rewrite part. -- Janizdreg 00:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


There is one or two ports of Doom for iPhone, but I have only played one (it is quite nice!) and don't have much more information. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

glDoom and GZDoom for *nix[edit]

The pending edit consists of the following changes:

List of source ports: Desktop

glDoom works on *nix: No --> Yes
GZDoom works on *nix: No --> Yes
with the summary gzdoom compiles just fine on linux

The GZDoom article says that one of the source port's target platforms is Linux. Thus, that change seems legit. But I give up finding out about glDoom. I found a page about it, but I'm pretty lost with the content there. Could someone help? --Jartapran 20:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I know wery little about Linux but, for one thing, I don't see any Unix makefiles in the source code that can be downloaded there. So, probably it's win32-only. Unmaker 16:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Split into Source port (what it is) and List of source ports[edit]

Perhaps it would be best to split the gigantic list of source ports into its own page. I was then pondering that the format of the list could be sortable, something like User:GhostlyDeath/ListOfSourcePorts. However the problem with that is the number of "expensive parser calls" which makes most of the content duds. As for platform support, this depends on the Wiki itself, have a $PORT/Platforms with stuff such as DLWMJ.. (Dos, Linux, Windows, Macosx, Java, etc.) and then just populate the "supported platforms" by using that data instead of manually editing the list. Alternatively, category pages have a giant list at the bottom. Sub-categories could be changed so that there are say "Cross-Platform Source Port", "DOS Source Port", etc. along with other things such as Boom compatible. GhostlyDeath'' 10:15, 16 September 2015 (CDT)

The approach you are suggesting is not tenable since as you note a partial implementation has already exceeded limitations. A wiki has to be running the Semantic MediaWiki extension in order to be able to store that much structured data, and we're not doing that here as it's a huge investment of resources and is difficult to maintain across MediaWiki upgrades. --Quasar (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2015 (CDT)
I think we should just dump the table and have slightly finer-grained categories to cover information like "Linux source port", etc. There is also a temporal issue to consider: For example, Doom Legacy at one point supported OS2, but the latest release is Linux-only. However, an older build may well still be a good choice if you want a port on OS2. -- Shambler (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2015 (CDT)
I have to disagree; it is very nice to be able to find information in one place, and not spread out across a tree of categories. It's impossible to get an overall picture without this existing somewhere. However, every fact inside it does not need to be templatized and we're gaining nearly nothing by doing so. Also, I'd say the table's appearance could be improved somewhat from the Looks like Christmas situation it is currently in. --Quasar (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2015 (CDT)

Create section for actively maintained source ports[edit]

I feel it would be useful for the list of source ports to be split into ones where someone or some people are still maintaining the source port, and one where the source ports in question are effectively considered dead, either out of out being announced as so or because there haven't been any updates or signs there will be updates in years. Death Egg (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2016 (CST)

Hmm.  Are most readers actually interested in whether people are coding and debugging, or just whether the stable build hasn't rotted?  If the latter, they can click to sort by last release date.    Ryan W (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2016 (CST)