Packaging Questions, New Debian Package, Packagers Guide
Dimitrie O. Paun
dpaun at rogers.com
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
> 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?)
More information about the wine-devel