Request to remove "winesetuptk" package from universe

Tim Schmidt timschmidt at
Fri Mar 11 23:48:09 CST 2005

As a regular user who has installed wine from universe, and then
upgraded to the winehq version, I can say that they do upgrade cleanly
and work much better (of course...  they are wine-years newer).  I've
always had trouble with Debian's pre-packaged wine (and no different
with Ubuntu's universe).  Glad to have you packaging it up for us
Scott, I hope you can convince the other developers to pay attention.


On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:17:30 -0800, Scott Ritchie <scott at> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-03-12 at 01:32 +0100, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> > hi,
> > Am Freitag, den 11.03.2005, 15:55 -0800 schrieb Scott Ritchie:
> > > On that note, I really, really want to know exactly why they're still
> > > not in universe.  They're more current, I can actively test them, and
> > > they don't confuse users by having only a partial and broken Wine
> > > install.  I still haven't gotten a straight answer from anyone other
> > > than "you're not the Debian maintainer"
> > i and several others answered this question several times via mail and
> > on irc now, we also asked you several times to work together with the
> > debian maintainer, since we dont want step away from the debian
> > packages. you still havent solved the issue with the several libwine-xxx
> > packages i asked you about several times. and no, the answer never was
> > "you're not the Debian maintainer", the answer always was "please work
> > together with him to make sure the packaging is compatible between
> > debian and ubuntu". if i remember correctly the debian maintainer also
> > made a changelog entry in his package that he would consider use your
> > work for the debian packages too. did you contact him ? do you work
> > together now ?
> >
> I'm sorry, I thought it was understood that the whole reason I started
> on this venture was because the Debian maintainer was simply unavailable
> and unresponsive.  He didn't return any mails of mine, didn't respond to
> requests to keep things current, and the packages were regularly 3 or 4
> months out of date - ancient, by Wine standards.  That's when I started
> making my packages and putting them up at winehq, and I only did it
> because the Debian ones were 1) broken and split needlessly to the
> confusion of users and 2) hopelessly out of date.  It got quite
> ridiculous telling users who came with support requests "oh, you're a
> debian user - install from source instead"  It's a little better now,
> since we can point Ubuntu users to the packages at WineHQ, but that's
> not an optimal solution and I believe we all know it.
> Despite my willingness to take over, make working packages, maintain
> them, test them, and interact with users and the Wine developers, the
> Debian maintainer kept his iron hand on them.  Maybe it's about ego, or
> mistrust of me, or perhaps a conflict of interest (the Debian maintainer
> does work for Transgaming, Wine's chief proprietary competitor), I don't
> know, but whatever his reasons are for acting this way seems to have
> little to do with creating great software.  Maybe I can guilt him into
> retiring, but it's just not the best way to go about things.
> I got really excited about the Ubuntu way when Jeff Waugh recruited me
> and Matt Zimmerman told me that things like that wouldn't happen in the
> Ubuntu universe, since we don't block other people's work like that.  I
> even got a personal message from Mark Shuttleworth telling me how
> excited he was about getting first class wine support in Ubuntu.  There
> are many great things we should take from Debian and contribute back,
> but the ability of maintainers to keep an iron lock on packages which
> they refuse to update or support should not be one of them.
> I don't mean to start a conflict with anyone here, or to drive a wedge
> between Ubuntu and Debian, but if I have to jump through hoops just to
> get a less ancient version of Wine added to universe, it's going to be
> needlessly hard for me to contribute to Ubuntu.  I've already spent
> about 40 hours just trying to weed through Debian beaurocracy (whose
> proposed solution was to submit about 100 bug reports on things I've
> already fixed so the Debian maintainer might feel inclined to do
> something).
> >
> > > I'd like to maintain them personally.  I even got approved as an MOTU
> > > back in the days of yore,
> > to my knowledge (and i should know since i'm in the MOTU lead team that
> > does the approval) you havent been approved as a MOTU. could you please
> > tell who reviewed which packages of you to do this approval ?
> >
> > ciao
> >       oli
> >
> Perhaps I'm just confused or misinterpreting things.  Either way, there
> is no need for this to be difficult.  The packages upgrade cleanly from
> Debian or Ubuntu universe to the ones at WineHQ, and the ones at WineHQ
> are going to be current and great as long as I'm on the task.
> The WineHQ packages really are better, even from a common user's
> perspective.  Take a look at this news article, where the author went
> through the same process that most of our Debian and Ubuntu users go
> through with Wine (unless they give up in frustration)
> There's no reason for this - he should have been able to get the right
> packages straight out of universe.  But that's not happening right now,
> and telling me to work with the Debian maintainer (who has turned down
> my requests to do so) isn't going to change that.
> I feel really bad about the kind of conflict such a simple thing like
> this is creating, but I also feel really excited - there's no need for
> it, and the spirit of Ubuntu really can help guide us here with the
> proper way forward.  I look forward to the day when we can run good Wine
> packages cleanly in Ubuntu, whether I am the "owner" of them or not.
> Sincerely,
> Scott Ritchie
> --
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel at

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list