Packaging Questions, New Debian Package, Packagers Guide

Dimitrie O. Paun dpaun at
Tue Nov 23 13:31:21 CST 2004

On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 07:14:00PM +0100, Francois Gouget wrote:
> Having lots of packages is the Debian way. So I see nothing wrong with 
> having wine, libwine, libwine-dev, wine-doc, libwine-alsa, libwine-arts, 
> libwine-capi, libwine-cil, libwine-jack, libwine-nas, libwine-twain.

...and it creates a lot of problems:
	Patient: Doctor, it hurts when I do this...
	Doctor: Well, don't do it then.

> To those surprised by the -(alsa,arts,...) packages, this matches the 
> xmms-(alsa,arts,...) packages. So there's nothing exceptional here.

It is actually -- it is a stated goal in wine to actually unify all
these drivers. We are introducing user-visible packages that are
likely to go away. Very bad. If anything, we should *really* get rid
of them.

> I'm not sure about libwine-print. It pretty much only contains 
> wineps.dll. I guess this is partly because of the CUPS dependency.

Clearly this one doesn't deserve a separate package. If the CUPS
dep is a hard one, we should fix Wine, not propagate crap upstream.
> Also the wine-util package contains tools that I think belong to 
> libwine-dev, especially winedbg, winedump and winemaker.

Again, wine-util is looking for a purpose. Things should be split
between wine, and libwine-dev. We should have:
  libwine-dev  (why not wine-devel? or wine-dev?)

at most.


More information about the wine-devel mailing list