Re: Wine status
Den 11. sep. 2011 13:44, skrev Cesare Leonardi:
> Upstream is 1.2.3 (stable) and 1.3.28 (development) and they looks like
> quite active releasing new versions.
Of course.
> In Debian we have two Wine packages:
> - wine 1.0.1 (1.1.24 in experimental)
> - wine-unstable 1.1.35
It's slightly newer now, but not new enough yet.
> Looking from sourceforge:
> - 1.0.1 was released on 2008-10-17
> - 1.1.35 was released on 2009-12-18
>
> In the past, the more detailed informations i've found regarding the
> Wine delay were this:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=557783
> But now it's seem superceded.
Because of the work and time needed for compliance with Debian's strict
DFSG requirements (in addition to having to package a full mingw
toolchain to compile it, upstream's Gecko package had to undergo a
repackaging for DFSG compliance, plus a complete license audit; no small
task, many thanks to Stephen Kitt for doing that), this issue was only
resolved like a month ago. Not in time for me to have enough summer
hacking time left to do a lot of updates.
> I'm really confused.
> Why doesn't Kay packages can't be the official Debian packages?
I suspect he always meant it to be temporary - letting users have
*something*, even if the packages may not be perfect and may not even
have been allowed into Debian at the time. He hasn't offered to be a
comaintainer.
> What's the problem behind Wine: technical, time, license?
With the license issues recently resolved, it's mostly time now. The
packaging still needs some revisions in order to become
multiarch-compatible. I have plans to make the wine packages use the
alternatives system more extensively, both for handling Wine's 64-bit
support and for making wine and wine-unstable coinstallable. All this
takes time, which I haven't had much of the last couple of weeks. I hope
to have more time in October (and I really hope to have it before next
Debian release, at least...)
For the time being, you may have to stick with Kai's stuff, I suppose.
Reply to: