Mono vs. Gecko packaging discrepancies
jacek at codeweavers.com
Fri Jan 24 10:41:29 CST 2020
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
> 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
> 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:
> 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).
Yes, I agree that subdir is nicer. Note that you may also just use
/opt/wine/ instead of symlinks.
More information about the wine-devel