On 26 Jun 2009, at 10:29, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
"Maik Schulz" ladenlokalvelbert@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO, it would be sufficient to add a "not supported by winehq.org" disclaimer next to the mention. If there currently is no binary distribution that packs the vanilla wine tree then you're making it unnecessarily difficult to obtain a binary distribution for the Mac OS X crowd. XCode is a separate install/ download (weighing in at almost 1GB) and people are generally less comfortable with the command line than Linux folks. I had to google quite a bit to find current wine packages for OS X and a link on the wiki would have been much appreciated.
In my opinion WineHQ Wiki is not an appropriate place for that. It would look like WineHQ somehow suggests to download and use that package, while that's not true. Darwine builds fall in the same category as WineX, and other Wine forks with not clear or conflicting licenses, or not supported and even listed/published patches applied. Users are not welcome to download, use, and report bugs for these packages, moreover these packages/packagers have nothing to do with WineHQ at all, and not deserve mentioning, as it would look like inappropriate advertising using WineHQ resources.
IMHO.
-- Dmitry.
Fair enough, but then, as long as there is no "approved" binary package, we have to accept that we probably get as many OS X users as you would get on Windows for an application that requires you to compile it yourself. The vast majority will be happy to find winehq.org, read that it works on OS X... then get disappointed when they don't find a binary package and turn to google to find one--and end up with a non-supported build. Maybe we shouldn't even advertise the "works on OS X" as long as we target only a minority on that platform.
Cheers, -Maik