Re: wine-unstable in Debian

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:44:08AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Right. Although we should be clear on what should happen with the > patches in the BTS. Otherwise people wouldn't know how (and if) they can > help, and that uncertainty would be a shame. Is the issue with the > binNMUs a reason

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

On 27/04/12 09:38, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Steve Langasek filed patches > for all the packages Ubuntu needed as multiarch. Look for the patches in: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=multiarch-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org;tag=multiarch It seems that the multiarch tag ha

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:28:04AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > > And yes, that is not yet ready so any people pitching in and getting a > > library package multiarchified will help. The patches are in the BTS, > > they just need to be applied. > > Except that we still have problems with essential

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:41:58AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > The plan for wheezy is that ia32-libs goes away. At least that it will > be just a transitional package that depends on the :i386 packages. > > And yes, that is not yet ready so any people pitching in and getting a > library p

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

Stefano Zacchiroli writes: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:41:58AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> The plan for wheezy is that ia32-libs goes away. At least that it will >> be just a transitional package that depends on the :i386 packages. >> >> And yes, that is not yet ready so any people pi

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:41:58AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > The plan for wheezy is that ia32-libs goes away. At least that it will > be just a transitional package that depends on the :i386 packages. > > And yes, that is not yet ready so any people pitching in and getting a > library p

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

Michael Gilbert writes: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Goswin von Brederlow > wrote: >> Jonas Smedegaard writes: >> >>> On 12-04-18 at 07:17pm, Simon McVittie wrote: I hesitate to suggest this if there's a possibility that the main wine package can come up to date before we freez

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:27:37AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > I only sporadically read this thread. But isn't one of the problems with > wine that different things run with different wine versions? Related, is this considered a regression in Wine? That is, if app X works with wine Y but

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Jonas Smedegaard writes: > >> On 12-04-18 at 07:17pm, Simon McVittie wrote: >>> I hesitate to suggest this if there's a possibility that the main wine >>> package can come up to date before we freeze, but one way to have Wine >>> 1.4

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:27:37AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > As a side note: One problem with wine is that it needs 32bit libraries > on amd64 and the state of ia32-libs. Ia32-libs does have some bugs open > concerning wine, specifically it doesn't allow building wine from source > (agai

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:27:37AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Since we now have multiarch this isn't going to get fixed in ia32-libs […] Given that multiarch is not likely to be completely ready soon, it makes sense to still fix bugs in ia32-libs if they're easy to fix. (Like importing

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

Jonas Smedegaard writes: > On 12-04-18 at 07:17pm, Simon McVittie wrote: >> I hesitate to suggest this if there's a possibility that the main wine >> package can come up to date before we freeze, but one way to have Wine >> 1.4 (and/or 1.2) in the distribution without NMUs/hijacks would be a >

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

On 12-04-18 at 07:17pm, Simon McVittie wrote: > I hesitate to suggest this if there's a possibility that the main wine > package can come up to date before we freeze, but one way to have Wine > 1.4 (and/or 1.2) in the distribution without NMUs/hijacks would be a > parallel wine-1.4 source packag

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

On 15/04/12 15:04, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2012-04-15 at 19:32 +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 01:18:28PM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote: >>> I am rather dazzled that while there is working source package >>> of wine-1.5 ready, other people are working on gradually >>>

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

Please note that in the following I'm solely trying to help all involved, and that none of the below is meant to be criticism -- so if any is implied, that is strictly unintentional. On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 13:17:45, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 03:07:54PM -0400, Chris

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 03:07:54PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote: > C) Current WINE maintainers are either MIA or time overload elsewhere. > Volunteers trying to help who have made additional 1.1.x packages are stuck > waiting because they do not have access to the pkg-wine git repo. Just to nitpic

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

On Sunday, April 15, 2012 09:32:53, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 01:18:28PM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote: > > I am rather dazzled that while there is working source package > > > > of wine-1.5 ready, other people are working on gradually packaging > > wine-1.1.x releases; > >

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

On Sun, 2012-04-15 at 19:32 +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 01:18:28PM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote: > > I am rather dazzled that while there is working source package > > of wine-1.5 ready, other people are working on gradually packaging > > wine-1.1.x releases; > I'm sur

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 01:18:28PM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote: > I am rather dazzled that while there is working source package > of wine-1.5 ready, other people are working on gradually packaging > wine-1.1.x releases; I'm surprised that not everyone involved is such dazzled. > Also, it seems

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

Hi! On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:23:47PM +0200, Kai Wasserbäch wrote: > I'm going to be brief: > (short version of > my motivation behind those packages). I have read that post originally, it explained well why you created the package

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

[Please don't CC me on messages to debian-devel.] Petr Baudis schrieb am 14.04.2012 16:51: > Hi! > > It appears that the last release of wine easily available in Debian > is from 2009, quite a surprising state for a high-profile project like > that. Kai Wasserbäch appears to be very kindly p

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 05:56:58PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > It's not even about unstable releases of wine, we're multiple major stable > releases past as well: > > Upstream has: > * devel 1.5.2 > * stable1.4 > > Debian has: > * unstable 1.0.1-3.5 > * experimental 1.1.24

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

2012-04-14 16:51, Petr Baudis skrev: I know that there is also an effort by Ove Kåven to bring wine up-to-date with some nice extras (thanks for that too!), but it seems to be quite slow-paced (the last status update I have found was from Sep 2011), so perhaps it would be beneficial to have wo

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 04:51:56PM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote: > Hi! > > It appears that the last release of wine easily available in Debian > is from 2009, quite a surprising state for a high-profile project like > that. Kai Wasserbäch appears to be very kindly providing wine-unstable > packag