[pkg-wine-party] WoW64 implemented Re: Call for testing: automatically detect wine arch and WoW64

[Austin English]

On Jan 2, 2016 9:59 PM, "Michael Gilbert" <mgilbert at debian.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 12:16 AM, Austin English <austinenglish at gmail.com>
wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 2016 9:07 PM, "Michael Gilbert" <mgilbert at debian.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Austin English wrote:
> >> > Yes,  in theory. In practice, many users don't report their
> >> > distribution,
> >> > and many developers ignore reports without the needed information.
> >> >
> >> > Why is it being overriden in the first place?
> >>
> >> Because when everything is working normally (the vast majority of the
> >> time for most users) debug output is just noise.
> >>
> >> For similar reasons debian puts debugging symbols into separate
> >> packages that the user has to explicitly decide to install.
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >> Mike
> >
> > The vast majority of software that I run on Debian outputs noise,
either to
> > stdout, stderr, or ~/.xsession-errors. I don't see why wine should be a
> > special case in that regard.
>
> They all of course violate rule 11 of the unix  philosophy, but that's
> a choice that the developers of those projects are free to make.
>
> Wine is also free to make that choice, and on debian we choose to be a
> bit more unixy than wine's default.

Debian isn't unix ;). Should I file bugs then for any program that
generates terminal output? Firefox,  LibreOffice, mousepad off the top of
my head are all guilty. I honestly can't think of any non trivial GUI
program on Debian that doesn't generate some output. Is there a Debian
policy that recommends or requires this?

> > If the output is blank or not attached,
> > developer time is wasted doing several back and forth requests to get
what's
> > needed.  I think developer time is way more valuable than reducing
noise in a
> > terminal that most don't even notice (and users can override
themselves,  if
> > they want).
>
> It sounds like you're arguing against dialog with users, and that's
> another ok choice to be made, but probably not as useful as involving
> them in the process of figuring their problem out.

No,  I'm not arguing against it, I'm speaking from my years of experience
working on Wine's Bugzilla. There is a limited amount of developer time,
and most would prefer to spend it fixing bugs instead of triaging what is
arguably  (from upstream's view) a misconifgured package. If a developer
wants to spend time doing so,  that's their prerogative  (and I often do so
myself), but realistically, your users are less likely to get support if
their default output is empty.

That's of course Debian's choice to make,  but again, from my view as a
Debian user and Wine developer, this behavior is inconsistent and more
harmful to users than any benefits gained.

If you're absolutely set on it, disabling output when wine isn't run from a
terminal would (to me) be an acceptable compromise.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-wine-party/attachments/20160103/6ef97e9b/attachment.html>