Marcus Meissner wrote:
Here is a list of the soft dependencies. We suggest packagers
install each and every last of those before building the package.
These libraries are not dependencies in the RPM sense. In DEB packages,
they should appear as Suggests or Recommends, as the case may be.
ICU
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Marcus Meissner wrote:
Here is a list of the soft dependencies. We suggest packagers
install each and every last of those before building the package. These
libraries are not dependencies in the RPM sense. In DEB packages, they
should appear as
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:56:43 -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
My reason for splitting off libwine and wine is that libwine can be
installed without wine and could someday be used to launch a program
that has been ported with winelib, without having to have wine proper in
it.
I'm afraid that's not
Francois Gouget wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Marcus Meissner wrote:
Here is a list of the soft dependencies. We suggest packagers
install each and every last of those before building the package.
These libraries are not dependencies in the RPM sense. In DEB
packages, they
The Debian packages have gotten rather out of date, and it looks like
Ove's not going to be making them any more. I took the initiative and
decided to try making one myself. I'm polishing off a new Debian
package now.
Some major things I noticed:
1) There were a lot of old hacks in the package
Scott Ritchie wrote:
However, I'm not sure if this means the wine binary package should
depend on them, since it's compiled in. So, should I make libicu28 a
dependancy for wine?
ICU is compiled statically. There is no runtime dependency on libicu. It
is an exception, however.
The general
On Tuesday 23 November 2004 11:32, Scott Ritchie wrote:
4) What I didn't find is a standard list of packages that aren't
strictly required for wine (like libxt-dev and flex), but that wine can
benefit from. A good example would be the alsa development files.
These are all things that should
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Hans Leidekker wrote:
[...]
* Alsa: http://sourceforge.net/projects/alsa (Linux only)
This library gives sound support to the Windows environment.
* JACK: http://jackit.sourceforge.net
Similar to Alsa, it allow Wine to use the JACK audio server.
I would add NAS
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 02:32:08 -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
The Debian packages have gotten rather out of date, and it looks like
Ove's not going to be making them any more. I took the initiative and
decided to try making one myself. I'm polishing off a new Debian
package now.
Cool! While
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 02:07:51PM +, Mike Hearn wrote:
Cool! While you're at it could you please combine them altogether so the
packaging matches the upstream sources? Last time I checked the Debian
packages were split into tons of little packages which is wrong and led to
strange
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 02:32:08AM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
Now, this leads to the question: is it worth even having a package
maintainers guide? If so, who wants to update it?
Well, it would be great if you'd use the experience you gathered
doing the .deb packages to update the guide.
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Mike Hearn wrote:
[...]
Cool! While you're at it could you please combine them altogether so the
packaging matches the upstream sources? Last time I checked the Debian
packages were split into tons of little packages which is wrong and led to
strange breakages. Just one
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:14:00 +0100, Francois Gouget wrote:
Having lots of packages is the Debian way. So I see nothing wrong with
having wine, libwine, libwine-dev, wine-doc, libwine-alsa, libwine-arts,
libwine-capi, libwine-cil, libwine-jack, libwine-nas, libwine-twain.
Well, it may be the
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 10:47:47AM -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 02:32:08AM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
Now, this leads to the question: is it worth even having a package
maintainers guide? If so, who wants to update it?
I sat down for 15 minutes and revised it a
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 07:14:00PM +0100, Francois Gouget wrote:
Having lots of packages is the Debian way. So I see nothing wrong with
having wine, libwine, libwine-dev, wine-doc, libwine-alsa, libwine-arts,
libwine-capi, libwine-cil, libwine-jack, libwine-nas, libwine-twain.
...and it
I sat down for 15 minutes and revised it a bit. Open for comments.
Looks good to me. We may want to add a bit of a stronger warning
at the top (maybe?) that the config file is obsolete, and will go
away, so don't bother to customize or provide one. Right now it
seems that our possition is a
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 13:25 +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Scott Ritchie wrote:
However, I'm not sure if this means the wine binary package should
depend on them, since it's compiled in. So, should I make libicu28 a
dependancy for wine?
ICU is compiled statically. There is no runtime
Actually, a wine and wine-devel would be good, to match what we're
doing with .rpm files. Reduces confusion. While you're at it, it
would be nice to host them also on SF, so we have a one place that
holds all the wine packages.
--
Dimi.
Well, I am condensing it down. Here's what I think we
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 02:56:43PM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
wine : depends on libwine, contains the binaries for running windows programs
libwine : contains everything needed to run windows applications
libwine-dev : contains the files needed to compile windows applications with
winelib
Le mar 23/11/2004 à 05:32, Scott Ritchie a écrit :
The Debian packages have gotten rather out of date, and it looks like
Ove's not going to be making them any more. I took the initiative and
decided to try making one myself. I'm polishing off a new Debian
package now.
Are you (or plan to
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 05:16:17PM -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
I sat down for 15 minutes and revised it a bit. Open for comments.
Looks good to me. We may want to add a bit of a stronger warning
at the top (maybe?) that the config file is obsolete, and will go
away, so don't bother to
21 matches
Mail list logo
