Review of wine 0.9.44 on revu.tauware.de
sh at sourcecode.de
Wed Sep 5 19:28:11 BST 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Good Evening MOTUs, Hi Scott,
as I'm not reached you, Scott, via IRC, I'm sending you and the motu
team this email.
Hopefully you can elaborate on my mail, so we can work on fixed package.
I just reviewed Scotts package on revu
Regarding his work on 32bit packages for amd64 I like the approach.
It's much more mature then debians (packacking a non-source-builded
lib32 tar within the source package)
What I don't like about the package is, that, reading debian/rules,
even the 32bit package on amd64 would install -m32 compiled libs in
AFAIK, all -m32 compiled libs have to be installed under /usr/lib32
and all native 64bit libs under /usr/lib. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Therefore, what I suggest is the following:
Today, we have two binary packages, wine and wine-dev.
I would like to see the two packages containing the native versions of
means package: wine on 32bit systems == 32bit windows, package: wine
on 64bit systems == 64bit windows ( when wine can be compiled with
For 32bit windows wine version on 64bit, I would like to see wine32
Those packages are only created for 64bit archs (I wonder if this is
possible on our buildds, saying that those packages are only be build
when arch: amd64)
Furthermore, all libs from wine32 package, compiled by default with
- -m32 on 64bit arch, they should be installed to /usr/lib32 to take
care about our directory structure.
I wonder, if we can push this to gutsy, but for HARDY I think it's a goal.
Scott, what do you think we can handle this?
MOTUs, is it possible to create those packages just for amd64 arch?
Your input is required, please feel free to comment :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Ubuntu-motu