Re: [pkg-wine-party] Looking for feedback: changing the -unstable in wine-unstable

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@debian.org> wrote:

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback.

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Scott Leggett wrote:
>> I've also thought about swapping the naming of two wine packages to
>> end up with wine-stable and wine, but that might be too disruptive.
>
> I think that this probably is too disruptive, and surprising behaviour
> for users. Upstream recommended usage is to try your app using the
> stable version, and only upgrade if you run into issues [0].

I'm not sure that it's that clear. That faq [0] seems to push users
more toward the development version, I think, with statements like and
"Use the version that works best with the particular applications you
want to run. In most cases, this will be the latest development
version;" and "Note that user support for the stable branch is limited
to the ability to file AppDB test reports."

In my opinion (coming from upstream), we generally encourage trying to use the stable release; but if there's a problem with your application (which, given wine's purpose and target, is common), we ask that users try in the latest development release before reporting bugs.

In practice, and without hard numbers, but solely based on what I've noticed online, it seems many users stick to the distribution packages, but 'power users' tend to be using wine from git or development releases.

This of course depends on the distribution, Ubuntu's PPA makes it easy for their users to get development versions, and I believe Fedora and OpenSUSE have similar mechanisms in place.

On the other hand, the ubuntu page seems to push more towards the
stable release [1] and strangely calls 1.7 a beta instead of
development.

That page is out of date, regarding the version. That page is maintained by Scott Richie (Ubuntu's wine packager).

Anyway, it's still not clear to me which is right. More opinions from
debian users would help. Should the plain wine package be stable wine
or development wine?

IMO, wine should be the latest stable, wine-development for development versions. Also getting rid of the various libwine packages (which I believe is already planned?) would be very welcome.

> As for naming, I think that "wine" and "wine-development" are accurate
> and unambiguous. This also has the benefit of matching upstream
> terminology. The length of the names seems fairly unimportant - this is
> why we have tab completion! :)
>
> Anyway, from an appreciative user, thanks for your work on packaging wine!

No problem :)

Best wishes,
Mike

[1] http://www.winehq.org/download/ubuntu

_______________________________________________
pkg-wine-party mailing list
pkg-wine-party@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-wine-party

--
-Austin