Sorry, Octavian, for sending this only to you.
On 8 September 2010 06:00, Octavian Voicu octavian.voicu@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Lei Zhang thestig@google.com wrote:
It would be helpful if you provide the content of your debian/ directory.
Mainly you want my control and rules files. I'll get these to you soon :)
I wrote my own debian/control file and what not and built a wine-gecko-1.1.0 .deb over the weekend. I haven't finished working on the main Wine packages, but I'll take a look at your suggestions and reconsider how to structure the packages.
As much as the final structure for the new packages is up to the official maintainer, I'm very interested in that decision and the reasoning behind it. Keep me posted!
It would be cool to also have wine1.3-64, wine1.3-gecko64 for amd64 builds, besides the standard wine1.3, wine1.3-gecko :)
1) I do not like those package names at all. It should be the Debian-style names, wine-unstable/wine64-unstable. 2) Wine Gecko has its own versions. I had previously built a package called wine-gecko-1.0, IIRC. This naming convention should be continued, IMO, as different Gecko versions could be required at different points for wine (stable) and wine-unstable versions.
Package names should be uniform and I suggest they should look like this: wine[64][-unstable][-<module>]
where <module> is one of: * dbg * dev * gecko
etc.
Octavian
-
Ben Klein