2009/5/12 Scott Ritchie scott@open-vote.org:
Henri Verbeet wrote:
2009/5/11 Scott Ritchie scott@open-vote.org:
Henri Verbeet wrote:
2009/5/11 Joerg Mayer jmayer@loplof.de:
As I think that Alexandre has stated his preference (and I can understand him taking a long term view), I want to ask the packagers for the distros out there: Would it be OK for you to add the necessary patch into the code that you distribute. Personally, that means Marcus and the openSUSE wine packages :-)
While distributions are of course free to do that, keep in mind that that would also make them responsible for supporting that code. I'm not sure how feasible that would be for something so close to core Wine functionality.
Distributions don't really "support" Wine anyway. At best we just make a new package every now and again.
Yes, but the point is that bugs filed against such a package are potentially invalid. (People should use git for filing bugs, but not everyone does.)
We already expect our users to indicate if they've done any manual registry changes when reporting bugs. This seems like just another instance of that.
But they usually don't.
As the Debian package maintainer, I won't bundle the DIB engine until it makes it into Wine release sources. I have the same policy for any other patch (including my own simple, definitely-won't-hurt-anything-but-will-make-things-better patches) to assist in keeping bugzilla *and AppDB* "clean". Do we really want the users to submit AppDB posts that depend on who packaged the binaries?