[pkg-wine-party] Bug#793551: Bug#793551: wine-development: Consider providing through Backports instead of Stable
kyle.auble at zoho.com
Mon Jul 27 12:15:01 UTC 2015
On 07/26/2015 07:54 PM, jre wrote:
> First off, yes, the current upstream version via backports would be nice. Now I'm seriously thinking about doing wine-development backports for Jessie's lifespan if I find a sponsor (I'm not a Debian Developer or Maintainer).
I saw that you did the patches to make the two wine packages
co-installable; that's impressive work. I'm just starting to learn about
the details of how Debian works internally, but I've read about some of
the basics. I was also aware of Backports because I used it to grab a
package that wasn't in Stable for the brief time I was on Wheezy. I
don't have the experience (or computational resources) to be a
maintainer at this point, but I'd like to learn more and maybe submit
> For now I also subscribed to wine-devel. I'll try to (help) improve the Debian documentation at winehq.
I just redid the Debian page on the WineWiki at
http://wiki.winehq.org/Debian so you should have something up-to-date to
> For wine(-development) in *stable* I'd say the focus is on not breaking things for the user (so no new versions, only bug fixes), less on the security perspective. So it isn't that hard to maintain wine-development in stable...
OK, that makes sense. I just figured it would be simpler to tweak fixes
for the older environment, as they came in, than to reach back and apply
patches to an older code-base too. I have very little experience with
Debian packaging though so that was amateur hypothesizing.
> ... and there's no reason to keep it out of there.
I understand. I mainly thought of moving wine-development out of Stable
because I saw that wine-unstable was kept out. The only tiny advantage I
can imagine is that it might be less confusing for users that just want
to install the newest development release. They would have to enable
Backports either way, but I expect that a few people will inevitably try
the version from the Stable repo someday, then get upset that the
default option isn't right. It's the kind of thing that's outweighed by
any advantage to keeping wine-development in Stable.
> wine-development not in stable would make the backport even harder or just impossible to be accepted.
In that case, having it in Stable too sounds like the way to go. Getting
an up-to-date development release back-ported is the real prize.
More information about the pkg-wine-party