Hi Antoine, On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 03:33:07 -0500, Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org> wrote: > It seems we are still without 1.2 in Debian. While I understand this is > a difficult project, after reading through the history of this bug here, > it seems to me that the package *may* ready to be uploaded... > > So what's the blocker here? Stephen - do you need a sponsor for this > package? The blocker's effectively Ove - after I did what was necessary to get wine-gecko into Debian (with a sourceful rebuild, not just repackaging upstream's binaries) I was hoping Wine uploads would resume and we'd catch up with upstream within a reasonable timeframe. Unfortunately only four releases followed, packaging three upstream versions (1.1.33 to 1.1.35 inclusive), and since August there hasn't been any activity, including in the git repository. Ove's reason for uploading every single version of Wine is so that all versions of Wine end up available in the Debian snapshots archive, which can come in handy given that some Windows programs work better with older versions of Wine. It also means changes to the contents of Wine releases and packaging requirements can be made progressively. Unfortunately we're so far behind now that even with one release a day it would take a month and a half to catch up (10 remaining 1.1.x versions, 7 1.2 release candidates, 4 1.2.x versions and 34 1.3.x versions), not counting updating wine-gecko, and the effort involved seems enormous to me - at least I don't have the time and energy for that. What I can do though is update my Wine 1.2.x packages (see http://www.sk2.org/wine/wine_1.2.3-0.1.dsc for the current source) to use wine-gecko-unstable as it ended up in Debian - although I'd rather name the latter wine-gecko-1.0.0 (as used in my packages) since having wine ("-stable") depend on wine-gecko-unstable is a bit unfortunate. It would be nice if the existing packaging team on Alioth could be extended, but I don't know whether that's possible without Ove's approval (or an Alioth administrator's intervention). I've had offers of sponsorship in the past, but if you're up for it (or Hilko) I'd appreciate it. (But don't just sponsor the existing packages mentioned above!) The next step, assuming we skip all the intervening unstable versions, would be to update wine-gecko (which is going to be a whole new bundle of fun given the changes since 1.0.0) and package Wine 1.3.33. > I also have concerns about the fork between this package and the Ubuntu > ones. Ending the fork could quickly bring Wine 1.2 and 1.3 in Debian. I > bring up those concerns in a separate bug report (#649238). I should really reply in detail to your separate bug report, but apart from the sound drivers I don't have any objection to merging all the binary packages back together. As far as taking Ubuntu's packaging is concerned, I haven't looked at it in detail; I'm not sure though that the wine-gecko packaging would be acceptable for Debian since it doesn't build from the provided source. Regards, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature