Debian Etch, Lenny and Squeeze packages

James McKenzie jjmckenzie51 at
Mon Feb 16 08:26:38 CST 2009

Ben Klein wrote:
> Debian Lenny has gone stable. YAY! I've already got chroots and my
> build scripts set up for Debian Squeeze, which is the new testing, so
> I'll be able to produce packages of Wine for Squeeze without trouble,
> but there are some issues I'd like comment on.
> 1) I will not supply packages for Etch/amd64 (this used to be a TODO
> for me). No negotiation on this, but I am willing to assist people to
> compile/package it themselves if there's a good reason for not
> upgrading to Lenny.
> 2) I'll still build Etch/i386 packages (because it's damn easy for me
> to do so), but how long should this go on for? Ideally, we should
> encourage people to upgrade to Lenny.
Is there a must have feature in Lenny?  Then I would give people 3
months to upgrade.  Is there a platform that Lenny does NOT support that
is in major use (witness the same thing with MacOSX 10.3 to 10.4
upgrade.  Some platforms, about five percent of all Mac users at the
time, were left behind.)  If this is true, the time of support may need
to be longer.
> 3) Do we want to set up a Squeeze repository with 1.1.15 in it, or
> should we wait until the next release to set up a Squeeze repository?
> If the former, I will build packages specifically on/for Squeeze -
> best to do it this way for maximum compatibility.
The builds for Etch/Lenny/Squeeze need to be separate unless Lenny
builds will run on Squeeze.
> Ideally, I'd like a standardised policy on points #2 and #3, so that
> we know what's going on for the next release of Debian (I know,
> long-term planning). Scott, I'd value your opinion too, even though
> you only do Ubuntu packages now.
Yes, the policy needs to be in writing.  Debian updates take a long time
and the next release takes a long time.  However there is a good reason
for this.

James McKenzie

More information about the wine-devel mailing list