On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 01:14:52PM +0200, Ove Kaaven wrote: > 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). >
Ok, thanks for the explanations, closing the bug. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 [email protected] http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
