Your message dated Fri, 02 May 2008 08:28:48 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line No-point bug
has caused the Debian Bug report #416100,
regarding win64 support for lenny
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
immediately.)
--
416100: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=416100
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: wine
Version: 0.9.31-1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: wontfix
Please do NOT provide win64 support for lenny.
This is a rather unorthodox request. Rather than requesting a new feature, I'm
requesting that you don't provide it. In the assumption that you will agree
with me, I'm using the "wontfix" tag to indicate that.
There's an extensive explanation on why providing win64 support too early can
benefit Microsoft and prevent the free software community from reclaiming the
desktop market (for us it's a market too, although we are paid in manpower
rather than money) during the upcoming 64-bit transition. See:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/world-domination/world-domination-201.html
This paragraph is most significant:
"[...] The two most important features of Wine 1.0 have to be that [..] it
does
not emulate Windows-64, its direct competitor!
If that second "feature" seems odd, heed the lesson of OS/2. That operating
system bundled a Windows emulator that worked sufficiently well for
independent
software vendors to ignore native OS/2 support. Vendors wrote for Windows,
trusting that the emulator would cover their OS/2 customers.[28] As a result,
OS/2 was starved of even the Macintosh's also-ran level of native application
support, and eventually withered on the vine. This is not the fate we want for
[GNU/]Linux."
OTOH, I suppose providing win64 for lenny+1 should be fine, since I don't expect
lenny+1 to be out before the deadline (end of 2008). After this deadline, if we
have lost the 64-bit battle (i.e. if Microsoft is still alive and we're still
starving), then we'll really need win64 for the upcoming long and tiresome war.
P.S: Anyway, our users won't find any need for win64 untill win64-only
applications start to appear, and this is currently blocked by Microsoft
inability to provide usable 64-bit systems. So we can easily live without
that..
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-4-amd64
Locale: LANG=ca_AD.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=ca_AD.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Versions of packages wine depends on:
ii debconf [debconf-2.0] 1.5.11 Debian configuration management sy
ii libwine 0.9.31-1 Windows API Implementation (Librar
ii xbase-clients 1:7.1.ds1-2 miscellaneous X clients
Versions of packages wine recommends:
pn msttcorefonts <none> (no description available)
ii wine-utils 0.9.31-1 Windows API Implementation (Utilit
-- debconf information excluded
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Closing this bug. It was never a wontfix as far as I'm concerned - I
would have packaged win64 support. But the issue is moot, because win64
support is still a long way off upstream - quite unlikely to be ready in
time for lenny anyway.
--- End Message ---
