DIB Engine : Almost 100% working

[Ben Klein]

2009/5/12 Scott Ritchie <scott at open-vote.org>:
> Henri Verbeet wrote:
>>
>> 2009/5/11 Scott Ritchie <scott at open-vote.org>:
>>>
>>> Henri Verbeet wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 2009/5/11 Joerg Mayer <jmayer at loplof.de>:
>>>>>
>>>>> As I think that Alexandre has stated his preference (and I can
>>>>> understand
>>>>> him taking a long term view), I want to ask the packagers for the
>>>>> distros
>>>>> out there: Would it be OK for you to add the necessary patch into the
>>>>> code that you distribute. Personally, that means Marcus and the
>>>>> openSUSE
>>>>> wine packages :-)
>>>>>
>>>> While distributions are of course free to do that, keep in mind that
>>>> that would also make them responsible for supporting that code. I'm
>>>> not sure how feasible that would be for something so close to core
>>>> Wine functionality.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Distributions don't really "support" Wine anyway.  At best we just make a
>>> new package every now and again.
>>>
>> Yes, but the point is that bugs filed against such a package are
>> potentially invalid. (People should use git for filing bugs, but not
>> everyone does.)
>>
>>
>
> We already expect our users to indicate if they've done any manual registry
> changes when reporting bugs.  This seems like just another instance of that.

But they usually don't.

As the Debian package maintainer, I won't bundle the DIB engine until
it makes it into Wine release sources. I have the same policy for any
other patch (including my own simple,
definitely-won't-hurt-anything-but-will-make-things-better patches) to
assist in keeping bugzilla *and AppDB* "clean". Do we really want the
users to submit AppDB posts that depend on who packaged the binaries?