[pkg-wine-party] Bug#585409: Bug#585409: Please packagewine1.2 series

Stephen Kitt steve at sk2.org
Thu Mar 8 22:26:29 UTC 2012

Hi Scott,

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 21:00:46 -0500, "Scott Leggett" <scott at sl.id.au> wrote:
> Since I see Wine 1.4 has been released, I would like to get discussion
> going on this topic again.
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:18:22 Stephen Kitt wrote:
> > I'm not sure it's worth trying to continue packaging every single version
> > at this stage; as I see it the sensible thing to do would be to package
> > the various Wine 1.2 releases (I've done the packaging work already, and
> > all the releases are similar), then move to version 1.4, which involves:
> > * packaging wine-gecko 1.1 (because that's the latest version we can build
> >   with the tools currently available in the Debian archives)
> > * packaging Wine 1.3.13, 1.3.14 or 1.3.15 (because those are the only
> >   versions still using wine-gecko 1.1 while also providing the tools
> > required to package later versions of wine-gecko)
> > * packaging wine-gecko 1.4 (which also needs some updates to mingw-w64,
> > which I'll take care of)
> > * packaging Wine 1.4.
> > 
> I think this is a very good idea. I've managed to get rid of most lintian 
> warnings on the 1.1.37 package, but I feel a little bit like I'm wasting my 
> time if you've already packaged the 1.2 series.. you also seem to have a
> much better handle than I do on what's required to catch up to upstream.

On the contrary, it's not a waste of time, I reckon most of the lintian
warnings also apply to the 1.2 packages... Feel free to check out the .dscs
and related files on http://www.sk2.org/wine/ and see what you think. The
packages are quite old and I haven't touched them in a while - in fact they
don't even use the wine-gecko package which landed in Debian!

> > I've started work on the two wine-gecko packages, but I probably won't
> > have time to do much on them before the end of March. wine-gecko 1.1
> > doesn't need much, it only needs a couple of patches from the 1.0 package
> > to build with current mingw-w64 so the main obstacle is the usual
> > licensing review. wine-gecko 1.4 is a bit more complicated. I haven't
> > started looking at all the changes required for the Wine packages.
> What exactly does the licensing review involve? I would be happy to assist!

Basically, it involves retrieving the upstream source code, filtering it (see
the get-orig-source rule in debian/rules in the current wine-gecko package in
Debian main), then checking that debian/copyright still describes the result.
For version 1.1 a reasonable approach could be to simply diff wine-gecko-1.0
to wine-gecko-1.1, looking for changed copyright statements. For version 1.4
I imagine there are far more changes to account for. It's also useful to look
at the firefox package in Debian; I believe wine-gecko 1.4 is based on
Firefox 8.

Ove packaged wine-gecko as wine-gecko-unstable, rather than my
wine-gecko-1.0.0 approach; I prefer the latter since wine-gecko versions
aren't associated with a specific branch (stable v. unstable). For instance,
packaging Wine 1.2 using the existing wine-gecko package means having wine
(-stable) depending on libwine-gecko-unstable!

Packaging Wine 1.4 will require changes to the current packages; in
particular, some of the sound driver packages have been made obsolete.
There's also the issue of packaging 32- and 64-bit Wine on amd64, and the
availability of Wine on ARM now...


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-wine-party/attachments/20120308/caa337b1/attachment.pgp>

More information about the pkg-wine-party mailing list