[pkg-wine-party] Bug#758312: Bug#758312: wine-development: please provide an upgrade path
berillions at gmail.com
Sun Aug 17 17:20:44 UTC 2014
*Sorry, i sent accidentaly the previous message !!!!*
Actually, the both wine's package in debian repository don't work correctly
when you install the 32-bits and 64-bits package. The installation is fine
but when you launch wine64, a 64-bits prefix is create but it's impossible
to launch and install a 32-bits applications (like explained here
http://wiki.winehq.org/Wine64 section "Building a shared WoW64 setup")
I already explained to Michael how it's possible to use this shared WoW64
libwine package amd64 *MUST* to contain all librairies present in
"/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu" + /usr/bin/wine64 file +
libwine package i386 *MUST* to contain all librairies present in
"/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu" + /usr/bin/wine file + /usr/bin/wine-preloader
wine package amd64 / i386 *MUST* to contain the rest of wine's files
present in "/usr/bin" (like winegcc, winecfg etc...)
*THE 64-BITS USERS NEED NECESSARILY LIBWINE AMD64 + I386 PACKAGES AND WINE
2014-08-17 19:13 GMT+02:00 LOMBARD Maxime <berillions at gmail.com>:
> Actually, the both wine's package in debian repository don't work
> correctly when you install the 32-bits and 64-bits package. The
> installation is fine but when you launch wine64, a 64-bits prefix is create
> but it's impossible to launch and install a 32-bits applications (like
> explained here http://wiki.winehq.org/Wine64 section "Building a shared
> WoW64 setup")
> I already explain to Michael how it's possible to use this shared WoW64
> setup. To use it, a user needs libwine package amd64 + i386 and wine
> package amd64.
> libwine package amd 64 *MUST* to contain all librairies present in
> "/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu" +
> 2014-08-17 17:00 GMT+02:00 jre <jre.winesim at gmail.com>:
>> On 08/17/2014 02:38 PM, LOMBARD Maxime wrote:
>> > Make a difference between the stable and unstable version of wine can be
>> > a good idea BUT only in the package's name and not in the application's
>> > name.
>> > For me actually, it's very complicated and it will be more difficult to
>> > resolv bug ...
>> > Why you don't create the wine's package like from Ubuntu, it's more
>> easy :
>> > *** Stable Wine's package ***
>> > wine package which include all files installed in "/usr/bin"
>> > libwine package which include all files installed in "/usr/lib/*/wine"
>> > *** Unstable Wine's package ***
>> > wine-unstable package which include all files installed in "/usr/bin"
>> > without suffixe
>> > libwine-unstable package which include all files installed in
>> > "/usr/lib/*/wine" without suffixe.
>> > And failed the both installations. Example, wine is in conflict with
>> > wine-unstable and vice-versa.
>> > If a user install wine-unstable package, it uninstall automatically wine
>> > package.
>> Well, this is not really related to #758312 since this one is indeed
>> about the package names and the transition -unstable --> -development.
>> Anyway; afaik it was a long standing goal to make both wine versions
>> (including their 32bit and 64bit versions) coinstallable. This I would
>> really like to see.
>> Still I agree that working directly with the suffix'ed versions really
>> is a pain and does not meet user's expectations.
>> Therefore in bug #758291 ([wine-development] Please use Debian's
>> alternative system) I requested/suggested an actual solution which imho
>> should make us all happy.
>> Without it I would tend to prefer your solution.
>> I think we are finally quite close to actually get the wine packages
>> that were planned for many painful years now (again a so huge thank you
>> to Michael here). I hope to send a first patch to #758291 tomorrow which
>> implements the alternative system at least for the -development packages.
>> I CC'd that bug because I think discussing this topic is more
>> appropriate there (or directly at the pkg-wine-party list).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the pkg-wine-party