[pkg-wine-party] Bug#793551: Bug#793551: Bug#793551: wine-development: Consider providing through Backports instead of Stable
jre.winesim at gmail.com
Tue Jul 28 01:49:55 UTC 2015
On 07/27/2015 11:07 PM, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 04:54:36AM +0200, 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
>> Mike, Stephen, what do you think?
> Sounds good to me...
> For backports all you need to do is verify that the version of
> wine-development that's currently in testing builds in stable, and
> that the dependencies of the resulting binary package are also in
> stable (or backports). If all that's OK, you can add a changelog entry
> to supply the appropriate version for backports, then find a sponsor.
> I've got an account on backports so I could do that, but I won't have
> any time before mid-August.
Awesome, thank you!
Of course this would be also necessary for following uploads every 2 or
4 weeks when a new version arrives in stable.
Let's see if the dependencies cause problems in the long run. For now
I'm aware of this:
wine-gecko would be missing in the beginning since it's also missing in
unstable/testing for current wine. I don't think this is a problem for
wine-development in backports now. But it would make a wine-gecko
backport desirable some time.
Since Jessie 2 build-dependencies were added to wine-development:
- libxml-simple-perl (is in Jessie)
- khronos-api (missing in Jessie). I have to take a closer look on this.
Either I keep the way opengl is handled during the build as it was in
Jessie, or I also backport khronos-api.
More information about the pkg-wine-party