[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[pkg-wine-party] Bug#758147: wine-development: conflicts with wine



Package: wine-development
Version: 1.7.24-2
Severity: normal


Hi,

--- snip ---
Unpacking wine (1.6.2-8) ...
dpkg: error processing archive
/var/cache/apt/archives/wine_1.6.2-8_amd64.deb (--unpack):
 trying to overwrite '/usr/bin/regedit', which is also in package
wine-development 1.7.24-2
Processing triggers for man-db (2.6.7.1-1) ...
Errors were encountered while processing:
 /var/cache/apt/archives/wine_1.6.2-8_amd64.deb
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
--- snap ---


I guess for the time being wine-development should have the same
conflicts/replaces like wine-unstable to wine and vice-versa.
Or you just have to take care of regedit.

Related to the solution that you choose for this bug, I wonder whether
you consider wine and wine-development to be coinstallable and whether
you are basically done with the "big changes" for the wine packages (see
#741702 wine-unstable: not yet ready for stable release).

Personally I'd hope for a single /usr/bin/wine for wine and
wine-development, managed with Debian's alternatives system, instead of
the 3rd-party-(own scripts, winetricks, playonlinux, ...)-breaking
/usr/bin/wine-development.

Still, a huge Thank You for your efforts and I hope you get wine in
shape before the freeze.
jre



-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (900, 'testing'), (300, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 3.14-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages wine-development depends on:
ii  wine32-development  1.7.24-2
ii  wine64-development  1.7.24-2

wine-development recommends no packages.

Versions of packages wine-development suggests:
ii  binfmt-support             2.1.4-1
ii  ttf-mscorefonts-installer  3.5
pn  wine-doc                   <none>

-- no debconf information



Reply to: