[pkg-wine-party] Looking for feedback: changing the -unstable in wine-unstable
austinenglish at gmail.com
Wed Apr 16 03:21:36 UTC 2014
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Michael Gilbert <mgilbert at debian.org>wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback.
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Scott Leggett wrote:
> >> I've also thought about swapping the naming of two wine packages to
> >> end up with wine-stable and wine, but that might be too disruptive.
> > I think that this probably is too disruptive, and surprising behaviour
> > for users. Upstream recommended usage is to try your app using the
> > stable version, and only upgrade if you run into issues .
> I'm not sure that it's that clear. That faq  seems to push users
> more toward the development version, I think, with statements like and
> "Use the version that works best with the particular applications you
> want to run. In most cases, this will be the latest development
> version;" and "Note that user support for the stable branch is limited
> to the ability to file AppDB test reports."
In my opinion (coming from upstream), we generally encourage trying to use
the stable release; but if there's a problem with your application (which,
given wine's purpose and target, is common), we ask that users try in the
latest development release before reporting bugs.
In practice, and without hard numbers, but solely based on what I've
noticed online, it seems many users stick to the distribution packages, but
'power users' tend to be using wine from git or development releases.
This of course depends on the distribution, Ubuntu's PPA makes it easy for
their users to get development versions, and I believe Fedora and OpenSUSE
have similar mechanisms in place.
> On the other hand, the ubuntu page seems to push more towards the
> stable release  and strangely calls 1.7 a beta instead of
That page is out of date, regarding the version. That page is maintained by
Scott Richie (Ubuntu's wine packager).
Anyway, it's still not clear to me which is right. More opinions from
> debian users would help. Should the plain wine package be stable wine
> or development wine?
IMO, wine should be the latest stable, wine-development for development
versions. Also getting rid of the various libwine packages (which I believe
is already planned?) would be very welcome.
> As for naming, I think that "wine" and "wine-development" are accurate
> > and unambiguous. This also has the benefit of matching upstream
> > terminology. The length of the names seems fairly unimportant - this is
> > why we have tab completion! :)
> > Anyway, from an appreciative user, thanks for your work on packaging
> No problem :)
> Best wishes,
>  http://www.winehq.org/download/ubuntu
> pkg-wine-party mailing list
> pkg-wine-party at lists.alioth.debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the pkg-wine-party