Ongoing Debian package maintenance.

[Ben Klein]

Sorry, Octavian, for sending this only to you.

On 8 September 2010 06:00, Octavian Voicu <octavian.voicu at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Lei Zhang <thestig at google.com> wrote:
>>
>> It would be helpful if you provide the content of your debian/
>> directory.

Mainly you want my control and rules files. I'll get these to you soon :)

>> I wrote my own debian/control file and what not and built a
>> wine-gecko-1.1.0 .deb over the weekend. I haven't finished working on
>> the main Wine packages, but I'll take a look at your suggestions and
>> reconsider how to structure the packages.

As much as the final structure for the new packages is up to the
official maintainer, I'm very interested in that decision and the
reasoning behind it. Keep me posted!

> It would be cool to also have wine1.3-64, wine1.3-gecko64 for amd64 builds,
> besides the standard wine1.3, wine1.3-gecko :)

1) I do not like those package names at all. It should be the
Debian-style names, wine-unstable/wine64-unstable.
2) Wine Gecko has its own versions. I had previously built a package
called wine-gecko-1.0, IIRC. This naming convention should be
continued, IMO, as different Gecko versions could be required at
different points for wine (stable) and wine-unstable versions.

Package names should be uniform and I suggest they should look like this:
wine[64][-unstable][-<module>]

where <module> is one of:
* dbg
* dev
* gecko

etc.

> Octavian
>