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 surprised that not everyone involved is such dazzled. > > > Also, it seems the current direction of that discussion is still to > > make the package "perfect" first and upload it then rather than vice > > versa, > It seems to *me*, that the current direction is not just to make the > package perfect, but to package tons of obsolete versions first. The > combined result is that unfortunate but familiar situation when a package > is theoretically perfect but doesn't exist in the distribution. I think we are doing our users and upstream a disservice when we fail to package new stable releases for a long time, particularly in the run-up to a freeze. If WINE 1.0 or 1.1 works better for some applications, perhaps it should be kept around as an alternate version. But please let's have a recent upstream stable release as default (i.e. what 'apt-get install wine' will install). Ben. -- Ben Hutchings It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice versa.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part