Hi Hilko and Michael, First, many thanks for your work towards more recent wine packages in Debian: I definitely hope that this work will allow Wheezy to benefit from wine 1.4 (and wine 1.5.3 as wine-unstable ?). That said, I think that the current pace (and content, FWIW) of the NMUs is fine but aren't really clear in terms of intent: are you interested in just pushing NMUs out as one-shots (and hence letting the current maintainers handle the responsibility of the resulting packages) to just have newer wine versions available or are you interested in becoming (co-)maintainers of wine (and wine-unstable FWIW). In that latter case, this intent should IMHO be clearly stated in the #479659 RFH bug (including links to packaging effort and NMU changes) as that would make the situation much more clear to outsiders just reading the bugreports. Le 24.04.2012 15:23, Hilko Bengen a écrit : > Should we build and upload a wine-gecko package or should the > dependency in the wine package be modified? If I read [wG] correctly, wine 1.2 needs wine-gecko 1.0.0, which is already packaged as wine-gecko-unstable, so for 1.2, I'd just go with a symlink. [wG] http://wiki.winehq.org/Gecko wine 1.4 would need wine-gecko 1.4 which would IMHO preferably be maintained as the wine-gecko package, allowing the "normal" and "-unstable" suites to stay unentangled. (The packaging for wine-gecko should of course be inspired by the one for wine-gecko-unstable.) Do you need help in that domain? Cheers and best regards, OdyX
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature