[pkg-wine-party] Bug#793551: Bug#793551: Bug#793551: wine-development: Consider providing through Backports instead of Stable

[jre]

On 07/27/2015 02:15 PM, Kyle Auble wrote:
> 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.

For co-installability full credits go to Michael Gilbert, the
(main-)maintainer of Wine in Debian. My patches are for optimizing this,
especially by allowing both wine and wine-development to provide
/usr/bin/wine via the Debian alternatives system (alternatives allow the
user to easily choose which package should provide a given command),
which per se is quite easy.


> 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.

Backports is enabled per default on new Debian Jessie installations. If
wine-development was in backports you'd see both versions in your
package manager, e.g. 1.7.29-20 and 1.7.47-1~bpo8+1, with the first one
being used per default.
So once a user knows about wine-development (this knowledge hopefully
spreads with the recent changes) we would have a nearly perfect way of
leading him to the wine-development backports version.

Greets
jre

PS: I'll look into your wiki changes later, thanks.