Packaging Questions, New Debian Package, Packagers Guide

[Scott Ritchie]

>Actually, a wine and wine-devel would be good, to match what we're
>doing with .rpm files. Reduces confusion. While you're at it, it 
>would be nice to host them also on SF, so we have a one place that 
>holds all the wine packages.
>
>-- 
>Dimi.

Well, I am condensing it down.  Here's what I think we should move towards with packaging:

wine : depends on libwine, contains the binaries for running windows programs
libwine : contains everything needed to run windows applications
libwine-dev : contains the files needed to compile windows applications with winelib

My reason for splitting off libwine and wine is that libwine can be
installed without wine and could someday be used to launch a program
that has been ported with winelib, without having to have wine proper in
it.

I imagine someday I'll take an open source Windows program like eMule,
set it up to compile with winelib, and have it turned into a Debian
package.  This way one could apt-get install emule and then have it
depend on and install libwine, but not wine.

The reason for using libwine rather than winelib is to comply with
Debian standards.

Thoughts?