[Bug 38926] New: WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

Bug ID: 38926
           Summary: WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of
                    the biweekly releases for major distros
           Product: Wine
           Version: unspecified
          Hardware: x86
                OS: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P2
         Component: -unknown
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
      Distribution: ---

Yes, I know that's a lot of work and may not be feasible. But it needs to be
considered.

Ordinary users depend on binary packages, and without real Wine packages
available, are forced to use third party versions that do provide them, whether
they want to or not. Debian never provided them reliably, Fedora stopped last
year, and this year Ubuntu has relegated Wine package-building to every few
months. That's the majority of our users.

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

Austin English  changed:

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

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

Sebastian Lackner  changed:

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

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #1 from Henri Verbeet  ---
I'd be inclined to agree. Of course that would need someone to commit to
building these. It may be possible for CodeWeavers to help out there if nobody
else steps forward. (Although no doubt at the cost of somehow inviting even
more accusations of not wanting to let other people participate in Wine
development.) Another issue would be where to host these. Presumably that will
eventually be resolved in the same way as for the Gecko and Mono packages when
we hear back from the SFC.

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #2 from Austin English  ---
Debian builds up to date wine, at least in experimental and/or I believe. In
any case, I could build for Fedora and potentially debian/maybe ubuntu if it
will work from debian's pbuilder setup.

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #3 from Rosanne DiMesio  ---
(In reply to Austin English from comment #2)
> Debian builds up to date wine, at least in experimental and/or I believe.

If that's true, our Downloads page needs to be updated; currently it directs
users to http://dev.carbon-project.org/debian/wine-unstable/, which hasn't been
updated since 1.7.15.

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #4 from Austin English  ---
(In reply to Rosanne DiMesio from comment #3)
> (In reply to Austin English from comment #2)
> > Debian builds up to date wine, at least in experimental and/or I believe.
>
> If that's true, our Downloads page needs to be updated; currently it directs
> users to http://dev.carbon-project.org/debian/wine-unstable/, which hasn't
> been updated since 1.7.15.

They're at https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=wine-development

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Lackner  ---
When I talked to Alexandre during the last few weeks, we also talked about this
problem (before the bug report was opened), and I offered that we can take care
of it. We have a huge set of build servers, and could offer builds for Ubuntu,
Debian, Fedora, Archlinux, Mageia, OpenSUSE, and various additional
distributions without any additional effort on our side. Build scripts and
tools could also be located in a winehq repo so that everyone else can
participate with patches and improvements to the packaging files.

Similar to Henris offer to let Codeweavers do the builds, it of course depends
on what people want. I have no problem to let someone else do this task, if
someone feels very motivated and/or sees advantages in one of the other
approaches offered so far.

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #6 from Henri Verbeet  ---
That's a bit of a misrepresentation of what I said. Regardless, I think at
least part of the point was to have these built by WineHQ, rather than just
finding a different third party to do them.

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #7 from Dmitry Timoshkov  ---
(In reply to Henri Verbeet from comment #6)
> That's a bit of a misrepresentation of what I said. Regardless, I think at
> least part of the point was to have these built by WineHQ, rather than just
> finding a different third party to do them.

Please define what is WineHQ and what is "third party" in your opinion,
and who is qualified to represent WineHQ?

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #8 from Henri Verbeet  ---
(In reply to Dmitry Timoshkov from comment #7)
> Please define what is WineHQ and what is "third party" in your opinion,
> and who is qualified to represent WineHQ?

In this context, "WineHQ" would refer to the server infrastructure controlled
by the Wine project. It doesn't make much sense to ask who can represent that
infrastructure, but assuming you meant to ask who's qualified to represent the
Wine project, that would be the comittee consisting of Jeremy White, Alexandre
Julliard, Michael Stefaniuc, Marcus Meissner, and Austin English.

But of course you already knew all that.

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #9 from Dmitry Timoshkov  ---
(In reply to Henri Verbeet from comment #8)
> (In reply to Dmitry Timoshkov from comment #7)
> > Please define what is WineHQ and what is "third party" in your opinion,
> > and who is qualified to represent WineHQ?
>
> In this context, "WineHQ" would refer to the server infrastructure
> controlled by the Wine project. It doesn't make much sense to ask who can
> represent that infrastructure, but assuming you meant to ask who's qualified
> to represent the Wine project, that would be the comittee consisting of
> Jeremy White, Alexandre Julliard, Michael Stefaniuc, Marcus Meissner, and
> Austin English.
>
> But of course you already knew all that.

So, you are proposing that one of the mentioned above people that represent
the Wine project should build Wine packages on behalf of WineHQ? What's wrong
if the packages will be built by Sebastian on behalf of WineHQ?

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #10 from Henri Verbeet  ---
(In reply to Dmitry Timoshkov from comment #9)
> So, you are proposing that one of the mentioned above people that represent
> the Wine project should build Wine packages on behalf of WineHQ? What's wrong
> if the packages will be built by Sebastian on behalf of WineHQ?

I said no such thing, please read more carefully.

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

Michael Müller  changed:

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

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #11 from Dmitry Timoshkov  ---
(In reply to Henri Verbeet from comment #10)
> (In reply to Dmitry Timoshkov from comment #9)
> > So, you are proposing that one of the mentioned above people that represent
> > the Wine project should build Wine packages on behalf of WineHQ? What's wrong
> > if the packages will be built by Sebastian on behalf of WineHQ?
>
> I said no such thing, please read more carefully.

That was just a question to clarify things, Henri, could you please be kind
enough to answer both of the questions?

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #12 from Henri Verbeet  ---
(In reply to Dmitry Timoshkov from comment #11)
> That was just a question to clarify things, Henri, could you please be kind
> enough to answer both of the questions?

Quite frankly, I really get the impression you're acting in bad faith most of
the time recently. I suspect I'm not exactly the only person with that
impression, so if that's not your intention you may want to work on that.

The fundamental issue with those questions is that they have all kinds of
implied assumptions, somewhat along the lines of asking someone "Did you stop
beating you wife?". Regardless, the answers would be "No." and "While I can't
judge Sebastian's qualifications as a packager, there would be nothing
inherently wrong with that scenario." respectively.

And to "clarify" a bit more, your questions seem to imply I somehow don't want
Sebastian building packages. I suppose that comes from the same kind of
sentiment as I referred to in comment 1, but I said no such thing. What I
pointed out in comment 6 was that I think it would be preferable to have the
packages built and hosted on WineHQ infrastructure instead of on
fds-team/pipelight/wine-compholio/wine-staging infrastructure, or on
CodeWeavers infrastructure for that matter.

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #13 from Austin English  ---
(In reply to Henri Verbeet from comment #12)
> (In reply to Dmitry Timoshkov from comment #11)
> > That was just a question to clarify things, Henri, could you please be kind
> > enough to answer both of the questions?
>
> Quite frankly, I really get the impression you're acting in bad faith most
> of the time recently. I suspect I'm not exactly the only person with that
> impression, so if that's not your intention you may want to work on that.

Frankly, I think both of you have been quite brash lately (moreso on
wine-devel, but on bugzilla as well). I personally think everyone (not just the
two of you) could stand to take down the aggressiveness a notch and try to
speak/negotiate in good faith.

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #14 from Henri Verbeet  ---
(In reply to Austin English from comment #13)
> Frankly, I think both of you have been quite brash lately (moreso on
> wine-devel, but on bugzilla as well). I personally think everyone (not just
> the two of you) could stand to take down the aggressiveness a notch and try
> to speak/negotiate in good faith.

Clearly I should have been smart like everyone else and just ignored this bug
report. My bad, won't happen again. I do sincerely hope everyone keeps that in
mind the next time people wonder why certain threads on wine-devel don't get
any replies, or why some people don't get any feedback on their patches.

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #15 from Austin English  ---
(In reply to Henri Verbeet from comment #14)
> (In reply to Austin English from comment #13)
> > Frankly, I think both of you have been quite brash lately (moreso on
> > wine-devel, but on bugzilla as well). I personally think everyone (not just
> > the two of you) could stand to take down the aggressiveness a notch and try
> > to speak/negotiate in good faith.
>
> Clearly I should have been smart like everyone else and just ignored this
> bug report. My bad, won't happen again. I do sincerely hope everyone keeps
> that in mind the next time people wonder why certain threads on wine-devel
> don't get any replies, or why some people don't get any feedback on their
> patches.

That doesn't really seem 'good faith' to me. There was no need for sarcastic
comments when I was simply pointing out that the behavior by wine developers in
general could use improvement. It shouldn't be a matter of commenting harshly
or not at all. That sort of attitude has been cited quite a few times from
potential developers as a reason for not wanting to (continue to) contribute,
and is something that we should all strive to change.

I'll leave it at that, given that this topic has been discussed plenty on
wine-devel and I'd rather discuss it there or at Wineconf.

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

Erich E. Hoover  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |erich.e.hoover@wine-staging
                   |                            |.com

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #16 from Rosanne DiMesio  ---
(In reply to Austin English from comment #2)
> Debian builds up to date wine, at least in experimental and/or I believe. In
> any case, I could build for Fedora and potentially debian/maybe ubuntu if it
> will work from debian's pbuilder setup.

What about the OBS? It is open to anyone and has the capability to build
packages for all three distros (and others). Marcus has been using it for years
to build the openSUSE Wine packages.

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

Austin English  changed:

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

--- Comment #17 from Austin English  ---
(In reply to Rosanne DiMesio from comment #16)
> (In reply to Austin English from comment #2)
> > Debian builds up to date wine, at least in experimental and/or I believe. In
> > any case, I could build for Fedora and potentially debian/maybe ubuntu if it
> > will work from debian's pbuilder setup.
>
> What about the OBS? It is open to anyone and has the capability to build
> packages for all three distros (and others). Marcus has been using it for
> years to build the openSUSE Wine packages.

http://openbuildservice.org/

Good idea, I forgot about it. CC'ing Marcus for his input. Maybe he's
willing/able to add support for the other distros. I won't be able to dedicate
time to this for a few weeks, but perhaps after that.

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #18 from Michael Müller  ---
We are currently using OBS for some of the distributions supported by Wine
Staging but we think about switching away. Although they support other
distributions than OpenSUSE, you clearly notice that OpenSUSE is the main
target.

For other distributions they only support stable versions, which is a big
problem for Debian. A lot of people are using Debian testing and you won't be
able to build packages for this. I haven't tried it myself, but I was told that
it is difficult to build Wine on Arch Linux using OBS. The usual approach to
get a WOW64 build is to build the 32 and 64 bit version on a 64 bit machine,
but OBS doesn't have the multiarch repo enabled and therefore you can't fetch
the 32 bit dependencies. I don't know if there is a way to workaround the
issue.

Moreover we already had multiple times the problem, that their mirrors were out
of sync. For example the repository database was already updated while the new
packages were not yet available. This makes it impossible to install packages.
Since OBS automatically redirects you to the fastest mirror, there is no
obvious way for people to try out other mirrors. I opened a bug report about
this a year ago without any answer.

There also other issues like the packages inside the VMs are not updated very
often and you run into version conflicts during package installation (at least
for non OpenSUSE distros). On our own build servers we therefore always update
the packages before building.

I don't know what would be the best way to build those packages, but it is
important to choose something which will work in the long run. It is hard to
change the repository url later.

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #19 from Rosanne DiMesio  ---
It wasn't my intent to suggest that we take over packaging for distros that are
reliably doing it themselves. Arch builds their own biweekly vanilla Wine
packages; we should probably add them to the Downloads page. And it turns out
that Debian is building biweekly packages for testing and unstable, they just
did a good job of hiding them, so we would only need to build them for stable.

I'm most concerned about Ubuntu; more than half our users rely on those
packages.

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #20 from Marcus Meissner  ---
The OBS was made for this kind of purpose, but as Michael writes it has some
issues.

- The OBS team import only stable distribution releases, handling of "in flux"
development distros is only there for openSUSE Factory due to the
administrative overhead.

- I once tried building Debian style packages, but failed as I am not
knowledgeable enough.

- The repository sync issues are however likely only transient, the
download.opensuse.org redirector is supposed only hand out mirrors that work.
If that does not work its a bug.

- OBS VMs are torn down and rebuilt after every package build, but the imported
distributions might have such file conflicts, needing manual workarounds during
build.

I can help with specific issues with OBS.

I agree with Roseanne, if there exist reliably biweekly builds already, we
should just point to them.

(You could also host an own OBS instances that you administer yourself ... but
in light of the needs the administrative overhead way way outweights the
potential benefit.)

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

[e-mail] changed:

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

--- Comment #21 from [e-mail] ---
Can we consider this fixed now or near future?

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #22 from Sebastian Lackner  ---
(In reply to super_man from comment #21)
> Can we consider this fixed now or near future?

So far its not fixed yet, but shouldn't take too long until the first packages
are available and can be distributed using the Wine CDN.

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #23 from Rosanne DiMesio  ---
(In reply to Sebastian Lackner from comment #22)
> (In reply to super_man from comment #21)
>
> So far its not fixed yet, but shouldn't take too long until the first
> packages are available and can be distributed using the Wine CDN.

Any idea when that might be? Lack of packages for Ubuntu in particular will 
limit user testing of the 1.8 release candidates.

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #24 from Michael Müller  ---
We are currently working on it. Our idea was to restructure our current build
system, so that it is not so much tied to our build server. We are splitting
the software into several components which might be usable on its own. For
example the scripts to automatically generate the packaging files for various
distributions are now available in a separate repository. This allows users to
generate the necessary files for their distro and compile the package on their
own machines.

The changes should be finished soon and we definitely publish builds for
1.8-rc1 at some point during the next week. In fact the Ubuntu builds should
already work, but there are still some tasks left for other distros.

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #25 from Rosanne DiMesio  ---
Packages are now available for testing:
https://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2015-November/110595.html. I've
also posted the instructions on the forum.

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

Rosanne DiMesio  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #26 from Rosanne DiMesio  ---
WineHQ packages are now available for the three distros requested in my
original report, plus one that was never a problem. I've added the install
instructions for all four to their respective wiki pages and posted them in a
sticky on the forum.

The Downloads page still needs to be updated. My suggestion would be to simply
link each distro on the Downloads page to their respective pages on our  wiki,
which is much easier to maintain, but historically Debian/Ubuntu have had their
own web pages on this site.

Marking fixed. Any problems with the packages themselves should be separate
bugs.

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

Alexandre Julliard  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |CLOSED

--- Comment #27 from Alexandre Julliard  ---
Closing bugs fixed in 1.8-rc3.

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

Andrey Melnikov  changed:

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

--- Comment #28 from Andrey Melnikov  ---
Add source entry for debian to allow self-build.

[Bug 38926] WineHQ should build vanilla Wine binary packages of the biweekly releases for major distros

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38926

--- Comment #29 from Austin English  ---
(In reply to Andrey Melnikov from comment #28)
> Add source entry for debian to allow self-build.

Please open a new bug for that.