On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Jeremy White wrote:
> 2. (Not yet discussed) - What packages do we provide?
>
> Marcus provides one - Wine.
>
> Ove provides five - libwine-dev, libwine, wine-doc, wine-utils,
> and wine.
>
> I would argue that Marcus provides too few, and that Ove
> provides too many.
>
> Remember that packages are not for *us*, they're for end users.
> IMHO, end users really want one of two things:
>
> 1. Wine - to run my app
>
> 2. Winelib - to build my app
> (okay, no one really wants this yet, but they're
> going to if I have anything to do with it <g>).
>
> I think splitting off the doco to save users download time
> is perfectly reasonable, and won't confuse end users.
> However, I think the current split into five, while I
> understand the motive, is confusing to the end user.
You think four would be better? If we let wine-utils mostly contain stuff
from programs/, then it seems a five-way-split is reasonable, and I can't
think of a lot of scenarios where it would be confusing. (Debian packages
do have fields such as "Recommends" and "Suggests", too.) It's common in
Debian to split packages (maybe too common) (maybe that's why their
package count is so high), which must probably be for good reasons.
But if you have a concrete suggestion...?
> Maybe we need to go back to the drawing board and
> reexamine this issue; perhaps some libraries could
> be static, and some dynamic. I think the goal would
> be to have the Wine packages work perfectly on
> 'stock' distributions (i.e. RH 7, Suse 7, OpenLinux 2.4, etc).
Well, as long as anyone is able to build winecfg on any Debian machine by
satisfying the Build-Depends fields of the Debian source packages, then it
can be put into Debian...
> Our current thinking is that Wine will not *require*
> Tcl/Tk etc, but that it will try to launch winecfg.
> If that launch fails, Wine will generate a
> message, and then revert to wineconf/wineinstall.
Might work.
> 4. Whitepaper / packaging specification paper
>
> Ove, you suggested that we should have a whitepaper
> to provide potential packagers with common ground.
> I think that's a great idea.
>
> I will work on revising Marcus's packaging guide.
> Then, Ove and others can beat me up, and maybe we
> can make it reflect the consensus <g>.
You'll use my reply to Martin Pilka too? (I may still choose to revise a
few details though... have already done a few more tweaks)
> Ove, why did you rename wineinstall to wineconfig?
> It seems to me that this is confusing (or at least it
> would confuse me).
It doesn't confuse Debian users. Naming the main configuration tool
"/usr/sbin/<packagename>config" (and have it called from postinst)
conforms with Debian Packaging Manual recommendations, section 9.2.
