for Red Hat packager

[Vincent Béron]

Le mar 09/09/2003 à 12:50, Keith Matthews a écrit :
> 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.

The opposite (as Debian does it) is a slew of small packages for the
whole Wine functionality. So if you don't install wine-print, you can't
load winspool.drv, and some apps (even some from which you don't use the
print facility) won't load. It's a semi-common problem on IRC.

The best way is, as Alexandre tries to go, run-time detection. Yes the
executables are bigger (more functionality), but there's not more
installation-time dependancies and it can use some more libs as they are
installed.

Vincent