Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>
> Jeremy White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't recall a discussion in which putting the spec file building
> > stuff in CVS was rejected. I think it's a great idea to have it in CVS.
> > Did I miss something? I suppose Alexandre is the real authority,
> > because he's the one who'll bounce any patch sent in... Alexandre?
>
> I don't think this belongs in CVS, mainly because there is no way to
> have one authoritative spec file; every distribution needs a different
> one. So I think it's much better to place the common stuff in a
> separate script (like wineinstall), have a good documentation
> explaining the various issues (like packaging.sgml), and leave it up
> to the package developer to figure out the platform-specific details.
Hmm. Any chance we could persuade you otherwise?
I think that in order for Wine to succeed, it needs to
have consistent, strong packaging. I think in order for
that to happen, the packaging process needs to be
automated, and easily replicated. And I think the best
way for that to happen is for the package files to
reside in a CVS tree. I'm not sure I see the
flaw in having a tools/package/redhat, and a tools/package/debian,
and a tools/package/openlinux and so on.
Otherwise, Marcus gets run over by a bus, and OpenLinux
Wine packaging stagnates, or Ove gets abducted by Microsoft
and Debian users are forever forlorn... <g>.
Jer
