Re: ***SPAM*** Re: wine 0.9.25-2
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 01:45:28AM -0500, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >Wow. No, definitely not. If the package can't be built on amd64, I'm not
> >ok with shipping binary blobs that get unpacked this way.
> >
> >What are the difficulties with building 32-bit wine on amd64?
I don't know about Ove, but I certainly would prefer shipping a 32-bit build
with limited functionality than shipping none at all.
Should we explore that possibility again?
> (Well, in addition to not wanting to deal with the maintenance issues of
> explicitly not building a bunch of libwine packages on amd64 until more
> 32-bit libraries suddenly appear - I don't even use amd64, so I wouldn't
> track its progress. But that's my problem, of course...)
Note that we could make this change t-p-u only, so that maintenance issues
won't be a long-term problem.
--
Robert Millan
My spam trap is honeypot@aybabtu.com. Note: this address is only intended
for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list.
Reply to: