mike at navi.cx
Sat Jun 19 09:28:18 CDT 2004
On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 09:54 -0400, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> I don't think we're doing too badly with the current packages -- over
> 85% of people go for them. Having a distro-neutral binary packages
> would be good, and it may shave off another 5% or so of the people
> who do go for source downloads.
You're forgetting all the people who pull from CVS. I don't know the
figures (Jeremy?) but I'd be willing to bet traffic from CVS is
enormous. In fact we have a mirror don't we? Most projects don't.
> The main problem however is that Wine is rapidly changing, and there
> is a need to build from CVS. No amount of packaging the official
> releases will solve that problem. But a distro-neutral might, because
> it makes it feasible to provide automated nightly build on SF, just
> like we do with winetest. Such a package can take care to avoid
> conflicts with already installed .rpms, etc., stuff that wineinstall
> is doing right now.
> So, what about a autopackage package? :)
Yes, I can do this. In fact we're already running nightly builds of the
Inkscape vector graphics editor on navi, I could do the same for Wine.
This might take some time though. For starters I'd have to fix and
resubmit my binary relocatability patch. Last time I checked apbuild had
nasty interactions with winebuild too (apbuild works partly by injecting
inline assembly pseudo-ops into the code as it's compiled) so that'd
need to be fixed as well.
More information about the wine-devel