DIB Engine : Almost 100% working

[Ben Klein]

2009/5/12 Scott Ritchie <scott at open-vote.org>:
> Ben Klein wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
> This might not be that bad, since the individual test report indicates their
> distribution.

Won't work so well for Debian where there are separate,
Debian-supported packages (with recent versions if you grab them from
experimental).

> From my own observations of AppDB reports, when users do
> things like winetricks or marking DLLs as native they tend to include that
> in the report (or at least say something like "I used the winetricks
> workarounds from the howto below")

If we're lucky, yes :P However, some users may get confused if there's
an option in the registry that works for some but not others. To
eliminate confusion, we will need consensus from all packagers, and
possibly some distributions that have packages separate from what's on
the download page on WineHQ.

At least, to *minimise* confusion, the packagers on WineHQ will need
consensus. However, I suspect that AJ will object to the DIB engine
going in to all packages provided by WineHQ, as this implies official
support for a patchset that has been rejected upstream.