Hi Scott, On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 21:00:46 -0500, "Scott Leggett" <sc...@sl.id.au> wrote: > Since I see Wine 1.4 has been released, I would like to get discussion > going on this topic again. > > On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:18:22 Stephen Kitt wrote: > > I'm not sure it's worth trying to continue packaging every single version > > at this stage; as I see it the sensible thing to do would be to package > > the various Wine 1.2 releases (I've done the packaging work already, and > > all the releases are similar), then move to version 1.4, which involves: > > * packaging wine-gecko 1.1 (because that's the latest version we can build > > with the tools currently available in the Debian archives) > > * packaging Wine 1.3.13, 1.3.14 or 1.3.15 (because those are the only > > versions still using wine-gecko 1.1 while also providing the tools > > required to package later versions of wine-gecko) > > * packaging wine-gecko 1.4 (which also needs some updates to mingw-w64, > > which I'll take care of) > > * packaging Wine 1.4. > > > > I think this is a very good idea. I've managed to get rid of most lintian > warnings on the 1.1.37 package, but I feel a little bit like I'm wasting my > time if you've already packaged the 1.2 series.. you also seem to have a > much better handle than I do on what's required to catch up to upstream.
On the contrary, it's not a waste of time, I reckon most of the lintian warnings also apply to the 1.2 packages... Feel free to check out the .dscs and related files on http://www.sk2.org/wine/ and see what you think. The packages are quite old and I haven't touched them in a while - in fact they don't even use the wine-gecko package which landed in Debian! > > I've started work on the two wine-gecko packages, but I probably won't > > have time to do much on them before the end of March. wine-gecko 1.1 > > doesn't need much, it only needs a couple of patches from the 1.0 package > > to build with current mingw-w64 so the main obstacle is the usual > > licensing review. wine-gecko 1.4 is a bit more complicated. I haven't > > started looking at all the changes required for the Wine packages. > > What exactly does the licensing review involve? I would be happy to assist! Basically, it involves retrieving the upstream source code, filtering it (see the get-orig-source rule in debian/rules in the current wine-gecko package in Debian main), then checking that debian/copyright still describes the result. For version 1.1 a reasonable approach could be to simply diff wine-gecko-1.0 to wine-gecko-1.1, looking for changed copyright statements. For version 1.4 I imagine there are far more changes to account for. It's also useful to look at the firefox package in Debian; I believe wine-gecko 1.4 is based on Firefox 8. Ove packaged wine-gecko as wine-gecko-unstable, rather than my wine-gecko-1.0.0 approach; I prefer the latter since wine-gecko versions aren't associated with a specific branch (stable v. unstable). For instance, packaging Wine 1.2 using the existing wine-gecko package means having wine (-stable) depending on libwine-gecko-unstable! Packaging Wine 1.4 will require changes to the current packages; in particular, some of the sound driver packages have been made obsolete. There's also the issue of packaging 32- and 64-bit Wine on amd64, and the availability of Wine on ARM now... Regards, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature