WineHQ Bug 26271
mstefani at redhat.com
Wed Mar 2 10:15:49 CST 2011
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Andreas Bierfert <andreas.bierfert at lowlatency.de> wrote:
>> could you please stop arguing about the validity of the bug. What you
>> are stating in comment 6 is really not exclusive. The Fedora wine
>> packages are in fact 'prepackaged binary'.
> Using the term 'prepackaged binary' doesn't make the package suddenly valid
> for WineHQ bugzilla, since it clearly contains not supported patches. Same
> applies for instance to crossover, ies4linux, wineskin or any other.
>> For the Fedora users pulse support in wine is an important feature. This
>> is why the patches are in the Fedora build in the first place. I'd much
>> rather have them included with upstream... Maybe sometime wine will gain
>> openal support for audio input/output and this issue will go away.
> Once again, packages with custom patches can't be supported through WineHQ
> bugzilla for obvious reasons. If the packager knows what he/she is dooing by
I disagree with this statement. Each distribution modifies the upstream
Wine in one way or the other. And a blanket "Screw you, use upstream
Wine if you want support" doesn't cut it. The distributions are for us
the main consumers of Wine and we should help them provide a good Wine
experience to their users.
Of course in this specific case aka bug 26271 we cannot help as it
involves winepulse.drv which is an unsupported outside patch.
> including such patches - he/she should take the full resposibility for that,
> including accepting bug reports for his package. If he/she doesn't want to
> carry the support burden then using Wine source without any custom patches
> is the way to go.
More information about the wine-devel