for Red Hat packager

[Shachar Shemesh]

Keith Matthews wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 19:09:04 +0300
>Shachar Shemesh <wine-devel at shemesh.biz> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>I am the RH package manager for Wine.
>>>My RPMS are indeed without BiDi support for now, as I was aiming for
>>>them to be rebuildable on any fully-updated (and nothing more) RH
>>>box. Of course, I can install the required libraries and build them
>>>with BiDi support if you push me to it :)
>>>
>>>Vincent
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>As all you have to do is have a local copy of the ICU library in order
>>
>>to get BiDi support in (and configure will autodetect it), I don't
>>think having your RPMs compiled with BiDi support will hurt in any
>>way. Your SRPMS will still be compilable on any platform (except, of
>>course, that the compiled version will not have BiDi support. That,
>>however, is up to each individual person).
>>
>>    
>>
>
>I think you should be considering multiple, alternative packages. Yes, I
>know it is more work, but even the current packages have dependencies on
>things that some people consider un-necessary and avoidable.
>
>Far too many packagers seem to want to add everything including the
>kitchen sink in, the end result is packages that are a right royal PITA
>if you are trying to install on a small system.
>
>  
>
That is precisely the reason BiDi requires no hard dependancies. If ICU 
is available during compilation, it will be available on the end system 
without any further packages required (statically linked into Wine). You 
will also find that most other packages are soft dependancies. I.e. - 
they are not required in order to make Wine work. If they are there, 
they will be used. If you don't want them, don't install them, and you 
still get Wine.

             Shachar

-- 
Shachar Shemesh
Open Source integration consultant
Home page & resume - http://www.shemesh.biz/