[Bug 25601] New: Possibility of slotted system-wide installation without violating FHS.

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25601

Summary: Possibility of slotted system-wide installation
                    without violating FHS.
           Product: Wine
           Version: 1.3.3
          Platform: x86
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P2
         Component: build-env
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]

Current build-system doesn't allow to add version to all installed executables,
libraries and data-dirs.

I could change Make.vars.in to use
dlldir = @libdir@/wine-@PACKAGE_VERSION@
includedir = @includedir@/wine-@PACKAGE_VERSION@
fontdir = $(datadir)/wine-@PACKAGE_VERSION@/fonts

but this won't affect other files from $(datadir)/wine and $(bindir) and
$(libdir) (i.e. executables, scripts, libwine...). This will require Makefiles
patching.

Yes, it's possible to supply --prefix=/some/uniq/dir option to configure, but
this is undesirable for disto-packaging (i'm trying to make multi-version
install of wine for Gentoo Linux).

I suggest replacing $(datadir)/wine, and libwine directory with variable like
"dlldir", adding configure options to set dlldir, winedatadir, winelibdir, and
includedir, and other configure option like executable-suffix, that would be
added to any binary/script installed.

If you are agreed with such intentions, I can make corresponding patches.

Rationale of slotted install is simple - while 'newer-is-better' for wine is
almost always true, regressions are possible at every update, so, if wine in
vital for your work, slotted install will guarantee you safe-and-fast fallback
(assuming, that you will copy your prefix before trying new wine). Also, there
is many programs that works great on older wine, but much worse on newer, while
other programs require newest wine to operate. Having both installed would be
difficult than. And slotted install will make regression-testing much easier.

While many distros already have this feature (generally via installation in
/usr/lib/wine-<version> prefix or patching build-system), I'm opening in hope,
that it's possible to convince upstream for slight modification of
build-system, so slotted installation would be possible without patches or FHS
violation.

I'm looking forward for your response. Thanks in advance.

[Bug 25601] Possibility of slotted system-wide installation without violating FHS.

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25601

Austin English  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |download, source
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

[Bug 25601] Possibility of slotted system-wide installation without violating FHS.

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25601

--- Comment #1 from Alexandre Julliard  2010-12-24 04:22:42 CST ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> While many distros already have this feature (generally via installation in
> /usr/lib/wine-<version> prefix or patching build-system), I'm opening in hope,
> that it's possible to convince upstream for slight modification of
> build-system, so slotted installation would be possible without patches or FHS
> violation.

It wouldn't be a slight modification, it would require fairly extensive
changes. I doubt it would be possible to do this without making a mess of
things.

[Bug 25601] Possibility of slotted system-wide installation without violating FHS.

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25601

--- Comment #2 from Night Nord  2011-01-24 14:47:14 CST ---
Created an attachment (id=32980)
 --> (http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=32980)
Example patch for such build-system

This patch don't change current behaviour, but makes such change much easier
(only Make.vars.in changes are needed). Patch, that makes build-system actually
multislotted will follow.

There is only one installed file that doesn't affected by this patch -
wine.application (I just hadn't look on it, as it's should be obvious to fix,
if it would be required).

Also, I hadn't test if wine will work correctly without supplying "correct"
symlinks - probably not, so code changes are also may be necessary. I just
hadn't look into this issue yet.

[Bug 25601] Possibility of slotted system-wide installation without violating FHS.

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25601

--- Comment #3 from Night Nord  2011-01-24 14:53:40 CST ---
Created an attachment (id=32981)
 --> (http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=32981)
Patch that actually enables multislotting using @PACKAGE_VERSION@ macro

[Bug 25601] Possibility of slotted system-wide installation without violating FHS.

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25601

Damjan Jovanovic  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #4 from Damjan Jovanovic  2011-05-24 11:11:34 CDT ---
Wine is relocatable after compilation, ie. the --prefix option to configure
doesn't have to match the prefix from which Wine is actually being run. The
only tool I've found that won't work properly this way is winegcc. So I'm not
convinced Makefile patches are actually necessary.

[Bug 25601] Possibility of slotted system-wide installation without violating FHS.

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25601

--- Comment #5 from Austin English  2013-08-13 16:00:08 CDT ---
Still present in 1.7.0.