epoll, LSB (was: Re: Problem roundup)

[Vincent Béron]

Le sam 20/11/2004 à 01:17, Dan Kegel a écrit :
[snip]
> Or better yet, ask people to download the right package.
> I just downloaded
> http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/wine/wine-20041019-1rh9winehq.i686.rpm
> and it worked fine on RH9.

That (wrong package installed) is probably the cause of some problems,
right. That's why I often ask the exact filename of the rpm installed.

> I wonder, though: the fact that somebody downloaded the wrong
> package means there are probably too many different versions
> at sourceforge to download.  I count 24 packages!  (OK, a few of
> them are srpms.)  Shoot, can't we package Wine as an LSB package?
> I suspect Wine depends on nothing that isn't in the LSB.
> That'd make life a lot easier for the users... at least for
> those whose distros come with LSB support installed by default.

That's partly because for myself I like (for no other reason than "I
can") to have a build optimized for my architecture, which is athlon.
Building it means uploading it is only a few more minutes. Then, knowing
that a lot of other people don't run an athlon, but a P4 (or earlier
processors), I also provide i686 and i386 builds.

Compound that with the fact that I provide for quite a few older
versions of RH (RH7.3, RH8, RH9) and FC (FC1, FC2, soon FC3) and WBEL
(WBEL 3), and that there are wine-devel packages too (only the i386
flavor), and you get the big quantity of packages there are.

The name and version number of the target is in the rpm filename, so it
should be easy to pick the good one.
Do you think I should add an explicit dependancy on the redhat-release
(or fedora-release) package, so people don't install them on the wrong
distribution?
In the past I did get a few (less than 10 probably) emails asking which
package to download for such or such version, but taking into account
the number of successful downloads for those same versions, that's not a
big percentage (IMHO).

Also, don't forget the people which will try to install a Mandrake rpm
on SuSE, or a SuSE one on RH (without any thought about the versions
involved). It's a mess, but Wine does some things so close to glibc that
it's difficult to provide a "one binary fits all" without compiling an a
very old setup (such as what Mozilla and probably CX do).

Vincent