[RFC PATCH 0/5] XAudio PE conversion.

[Zebediah Figura (she/her)]

On 8/31/21 2:30 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> "Zebediah Figura (she/her)" <zfigura at codeweavers.com> writes:
> 
>> On 8/31/21 1:25 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>>> "Zebediah Figura (she/her)" <zfigura at codeweavers.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> (3) Most importantly, I would like to coöperate with distributions. As
>>>> I understand, they already don't like the way we distribute wine-mono
>>>> and wine-gecko, and I don't think we should annoy them any further by
>>>> going behind their back and distributing more pre-built libraries.
>>>>
>>>> I know people here think that they won't want to distribute PE
>>>> libraries, but I'm inclined to think that at least some distributions
>>>> won't be happy with our proposed solution either. See [1] [2] [3] [4]
>>>> for popular distributions trying to discourage source imports and
>>>> static libraries. I get that we're a special case, and maybe
>>>> distributions will think so too, but I really want to again argue that
>>>> we shouldn't be making that decision for them.
>>> Have you tried asking them?
>>
>> I haven't yet. I didn't really want to speak on behalf of the Wine
>> project if the consensus was against consulting them, and I didn't
>> want to start that conversation without the possibility that its
>> fruits would at least be taken into account. But if there are no
>> objections I'll start writing some mails.
> 
> I don't see any harm in asking. I'll admit that I'm fairly skeptical, so
> it will be up to you to build a convincing case. Getting the buy-in of
> the major distros is obviously a required step.

Well, to be clear, I'm not even necessarily trying to build a case 
(anymore); I'd just like to not leave them out of the conversation.

In particular, I think distributions *may* want to encourage us toward 
dynamic linking, and they also *may* want to distribute dependencies 
separately (so that they can, say, distribute our libgnutls in sync with 
ELF libgnutls in case they need to do a security update). For that 
matter that doesn't necessarily preclude building everything with 
submodules, although I personally would like to avoid submodules or 
anything like them.

> 
>>> Remember that we need the libs to have custom names, to avoid conflicts
>>> with Windows apps shipping the same libs.
>>
>> Yep, I've been keeping that in mind. If we want to distribute shared
>> libraries I'm inclined to think the best solution there is to copy (or
>> symlink, or fake-symlink) them into the prefix with different names.
> 
> This won't work for nested dependencies. For instance the PE libpng is
> going to import the PE zlib, so it needs to have been renamed at build
> time already.

Indeed; that's annoying, but thanks for pointing it out.