Aurelien Jarno skrev: > Any news on that? Should we make the unstable version of wine not > installable, or should we simply close this bug?
I'm not entirely sure whether you mean unstable as in "sid" (where the stable version of Wine, 1.0.*, is), or as in Wine 1.1.* in experimental. There's no reason to make Wine 1.0.* uninstallable. It uses /usr/lib, not /usr/lib32, and is therefore unaffected by the transition. (I could change that, but don't see much point.) Being the current stable release of Wine, it is likely to stay there for a while, and with very few updates, if any. There are issues in experimental, though. I initially made it install into /usr/lib32 instead of /usr/lib as a bit of an experiment (in anticipation of Wine's 64-bit version), before the transitions began. I'll add a Pre-Depends if the Wine packages continue to use /usr/lib32, though maybe it won't (I might multiarchify it instead). And when Wine 1.1.* goes into unstable, it will probably also be under different package names. (I would have uploaded such a fixed Wine package already, but right now it's a bit difficult to upload any Wine, given the ia32-libs situation.) In any case, there won't be broken Wine packages (regarding this, at least..) in unstable. And in experimental, I'll just tell anyone who asks to reinstall the Wine debs (which works). I'd suggest you ignore the problem (close the bug). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
