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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org