On 26 Jun 2009, at 10:29, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
"Maik Schulz" <ladenlokalvelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
IMHO, it would be sufficient to add a "not supported by
winehq.org" disclaimer next to the mention. If there currently is
no binary distribution that packs the vanilla wine tree then
you're making it unnecessarily difficult to obtain a binary
distribution for the Mac OS X crowd. XCode is a separate install/
download (weighing in at almost 1GB) and people are generally less
comfortable with the command line than Linux folks. I had to
google quite a bit to find current wine packages for OS X and a
link on the wiki would have been much appreciated.
In my opinion WineHQ Wiki is not an appropriate place for that.
It would look like WineHQ somehow suggests to download and use
that package, while that's not true. Darwine builds fall in the
same category as WineX, and other Wine forks with not clear or
conflicting licenses, or not supported and even listed/published
patches applied. Users are not welcome to download, use, and report
bugs for these packages, moreover these packages/packagers have
nothing to do with WineHQ at all, and not deserve mentioning, as it
would look like inappropriate advertising using WineHQ resources.
IMHO.
--
Dmitry.
Fair enough, but then, as long as there is no "approved" binary
package, we have to accept that we probably get as many OS X users as
you would get on Windows for an application that requires you to
compile it yourself. The vast majority will be happy to find
winehq.org, read that it works on OS X... then get disappointed when
they don't find a binary package and turn to google to find one--and
end up with a non-supported build. Maybe we shouldn't even advertise
the "works on OS X" as long as we target only a minority on that
platform.
Cheers,
-Maik
