Hi,
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 02:43:00PM -0400, Joseph Bisch wrote:
> I think the problem is bigger than it initially appears. The patch
> Andrey provides seems to only work for i386, not amd64. The
> wine-development package only provides wine-development[0], whereas
> wine provides wine[1]. Winetricks searches for a wine executable, not
> the wine-development executable. The wine32-development package
> provides a wine executable, which isn't provided by
> wine64-development, which is why this only affects amd64, not i386. I
> have attached a patch that appears to fix the wine-development issue
> by searching for wine-development if wine can't be found.
Well, wine32-development does provide a wine executable, but not in $PATH, so
I don't think it matters and it should work equally well (or not well at all)
on both architectures. I happen to have a i386 system and a "wine" in $PATH
that execs wine-development, and when I remove it, winetricks complains that
------------------------------------------------------
WINE is wine, which is neither on the path nor an executable file
------------------------------------------------------
So I think that there's no amd64-specific problem and your patch isn't needed.
That being said, the logic in winetricks_init is likely wrong, as it tries
"wine" first, but wineserver is searched in wine-{development,unstable} path
first. That might go horribly wrong if both wine and wine-development is
installed (which it isn't on this box). :-(
I am not sure what the correct solution is. I'm starting to think that
extending both of those error messages to tell the user to correctly set
_both_ WINE and WINESERVER environment variables might be the only safe
option (I'd even go as far as to never look for wine-{development,unstable}
wineserver). And, as the comment suggests, persuade Debian wine maintainers
to put wineserver back in path, ideally using alternatives so that it's easy
to switch between wine and wine-development.
> If I got anything wrong let me know. I think I choose too difficult of
> a package for my first package. Maybe I should re-orphan it to allow
> someone more qualified to adopt it.
Please don't give up. Sorry if I was too harsh in the reopening e-mail. Not
being a Debian developer myself, I'm very thankful that there are people who
have time to maintain packages, even if they don't manage to fix all bugs
themselves.
Regards,
--
Tomáš Janoušek, a.k.a. Liskni_si, http://work.lisk.in/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
