Ben Klein wrote: > 2009/2/26 Dan Kegel <d...@kegel.com>: >> Our currently released version is 1.0, but the appdb's >> browse feature acts as if that version no longer exists. >> This will seriously confuse newcomers who are using >> the 1.0.1 version (e.g. anybody who installs a fresh >> copy of Ubuntu!). >> >> To fix this, we should add 1.0 (or 1.0.1) back into the search box in >> http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=application > > Someone mentioned on another thread (or possibly on IRC, I don't > recall) that 1.0-series is too old to be of concern to us. We don't > want test data for 1.0.x; we don't want bug reports for 1.0.x unless > they're still apparent in the development version. Development has > stopped on 1.0.x. > > The problem is that 1.0.1 is not actually "stable" in that it doesn't > crash/runs lots of apps. It's "stable" in that the code doesn't > change, kind of like Debian Stable. If a massive security issue (like > a rootkit) becomes apparent in 1.0.1, I'm pretty sure we want to know > about that, but in general, if it can be fixed by upgrading to 1.1.x, > then that's what you should do. > > There have been plenty of cases in #winehq where users have some > problem with 1.0.1 (Warcraft 3 appears to be a popular candidate). > When they upgrade to 1.1.15, suddenly it starts working. Are there > even any winehq-supplied binary packages for any distro that supply > 1.0.1 by default? Scott's Ubuntu packages are the dev versions, though > 1.0.1 is accessible through his archives; my Debian packages only go > back to about 1.1.12 or so. > >
What this means, quite simply, is that we need more frequent releases of a stable Wine version. I know Alexandre wants to cram in a major feature before starting the stabilization process, but unless that happens really soon we're only going to see issues like this get even worse. Thanks, Scott Ritchie