Mono vs. Gecko packaging discrepancies
fgouget at codeweavers.com
Fri Jan 24 10:00:18 CST 2020
I noticed a number of discrepencies in the way the Gecko and Mono addons
* One uses ...<arch>-<version>... the other ...<version>-<arch>...
* One uses .bz2 files, the other .gz.
* For one the tar file must be extracted to "../<addon>", for the other
* One stores the source in ...<addon>-<version>.tar*, the other in
None of this is major but it just makes writing scripts that deal with
addons a pain for seemingly no good reason. Could we standardize?
After reviewing the differences I think I prefer the way Gecko does
* bzip2 is pretty widely adopted and compresses better so I'd
standardize on that. I'd be game for xz or even zstd too (xz is one of
the formats used for the Linux kernel tarballs so maybe it's
* Putting the 'architecture' last makes it easier to build the tar
filename from the directory name. So I would standardize on
wine-<addon>-<version><arch>.tar.bz2. And I'd treat the source as yet
That would give:
or wine-mono-4.9.4.tar.bz2 like the msi file
or wine-mono-4.9.4-all.tar.bz2 in Debian fashion
* For the directory where to extract the file I prefer '../<addon>/'
because that matches the directory for msi files. Also it makes it
easier to create a symlink to that directory and not have to update it
when a new version is released (my Wine build directories are not all
in the same location).
Francois Gouget <fgouget at codeweavers.com>
More information about the wine-devel