Andreas Bierfert wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:31:12 +0100 Mike Hearn mike@plan99.net wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:03:23 +0200, Andreas Bierfert wrote:
Well from a wine perspective I see that this makes sense, but if you take a look at all the dependencies it is another story...
This is a problem with RPM and not with Wine. If RPM/yum had the concept of optional dependencies like some other systems do then this would really not be an issue. A better way to handle this would be to fix RPM, or
It does know about this (don't quite remember the version it was introduced with but it allows for that now).
simply to not mark them as dependencies at all yet still build the package with those features enabled. If the supporting libraries are
This is just wrong packaging. Sorry if this sounds harsh but that cannot be the solution and it never will be in Fedora Extras.
missing the features will be disabled at runtime usually with a message on stderr.
Don't get me wrong... I am really happy that in the near future (1-2 years) rpm and yum support for optional dependencies will be spread enough so it solves a lot of issues like this one and I am really happy to make use of it... but for now this is not an option, sadly...
The problem here is exactly the same as with Debian. This approach is just broken and should not be used. What if the user does not know about
Hm maybe it is... but then I am no wine crack... splitting stuff up is something you do in packaging and what really is encouraged by distributions. Splitting stuff makes users happy and I can see why... ;) Looking over to debian and thinking about the stuff that is installed by 'make install' got me to the layout I have now... I don't say its perfect... it never was and it probably never will be... that is why I like input from upstream... I am the packager not the guy who did all the work on wine but I am the packager and I know what is needed/wanted/regulated on the fedora side of the story. Together with your input I am more than happy to change things around, just need people upstream who are willing to listen and talk to packagers and I hope in this case it will work. On thing I could offer which probably makes sense anyway is to mention sub packages in the description or in a README-Fedora.
wine-tools and does not install it? They will be missing:
- winecmd
- notepad
- winedbg
- winepath
- winhelp
- _EXPLORER_
These may appear to to be optional but they are not.
Explorer is needed for shell integration, HAL support and system tray support. It is not an end user tool, it's a part of the Wine infrastructure.
Ok, will move explorer to the main wine package.
Winedbg is needed to produce useful crash data for developers. Notepad and winecmd are sometimes used by installers which will *fail silently* if they are missing. Winepath is used by various third party scripts. Winhelp is used by apps for online help, obviously.
hm then maybe stuff should be merged to the main wine package for the stuff mentioned above... will look into it and if you have further input and suggestions rest assured that they are always welcome.
Gah. This is just frustrating. The same mistakes are made over and over and over again. And we are the ones who get to pick up the bugs. What was wrong with the way Vincent did it?
Well for one thing: Direct them to me or https://bugzilla.redhat.com. I have no problem with that and I stand for what I do. Maybe just maybe try to see the packager/distro side of things and you will see that what Vincent did was great work and is for certain things but for what is modern packaging and very distribution specific to fedora or even fedora extras the way I did it is the way to go... not by my opinion but the opinion and rules of the fedora community... if you don't like it fine... ignore it, ignore me... but I'd rather work together with you and the wine team on improving the wine experience for users and not fighting here wasting time that could be better spent improving the user situation.
- Andreas
Well I found it frustrating the way it is packaged. I just deleted all the FC5 wine stuff and downloaded it from winehq. It is a shame you don't get the all the things you need without having to install 10 packages.
My $.02, Steve Clark