Mono vs. Gecko packaging discrepancies

[Jacek Caban]

On 24.01.2020 17:00, Francois Gouget wrote:
> I noticed a number of discrepencies in the way the Gecko and Mono addons
> are packaged:
>
> * 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
>    just "../".
> * One stores the source in ...<addon>-<version>.tar*, the other in
>    ...<addon>-<version>-src.tar*.
>
> 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
> things:
>
> * 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
>    mainstream enough).


It looks like the main Wine package uses xz and I'm with switching to that.


> * 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
>    another architecture.
>    That would give:
>       wine-mono-4.9.4-src.tar.bz2
>       wine-mono-4.9.4-bin.tar.bz2
>         or wine-mono-4.9.4.tar.bz2 like the msi file
>         or wine-mono-4.9.4-all.tar.bz2 in Debian fashion
>       wine-gecko-2.47.1-src.tar.bz2
>       wine-gecko-2.47.1-x86.tar.bz2
>       wine-gecko-2.47.1-x86_64.tar.bz2
>
> * 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).


Yes, I agree that subdir is nicer. Note that you may also just use 
/opt/wine/ instead of symlinks.


Thanks,

Jacek