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?
> There are not enough 32-bit libs on amd64 to satisfy all of Wine's core
> build dependencies. For example, it needs libicu36 for proper i18n
> support. Since ICU gets statically linked into Wine, a "binary blob"
> built on i386 can have i18n support on amd64 even though libicu36 does
> not otherwise exist in 32-bit form on amd64.
> I'm also concerned that a few X11-related libraries do not have .so
> symlinks in ia32-libs. For example, libXmu.so.6 exists there, but
> libXmu.so doesn't, which would make linking against it impossible if it
> was built on amd64, even though it's there at runtime.
Ok, I see how these would be problems. Unfortunately, I still don't think
this justifies shipping an executable in the diff. It's a shame that
multiarch didn't come together in time for etch, but that's life.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: