Ben Klein wrote:
2009/5/12 Scott Ritchie <sc...@open-vote.org>:
Henri Verbeet wrote:
2009/5/11 Scott Ritchie <sc...@open-vote.org>:
Henri Verbeet wrote:
2009/5/11 Joerg Mayer <jma...@loplof.de>:
As I think that Alexandre has stated his preference (and I can
understand
him taking a long term view), I want to ask the packagers for the
distros
out there: Would it be OK for you to add the necessary patch into the
code that you distribute. Personally, that means Marcus and the
openSUSE
wine packages :-)
While distributions are of course free to do that, keep in mind that
that would also make them responsible for supporting that code. I'm
not sure how feasible that would be for something so close to core
Wine functionality.
Distributions don't really "support" Wine anyway. At best we just make a
new package every now and again.
Yes, but the point is that bugs filed against such a package are
potentially invalid. (People should use git for filing bugs, but not
everyone does.)
We already expect our users to indicate if they've done any manual registry
changes when reporting bugs. This seems like just another instance of that.
But they usually don't.
As the Debian package maintainer, I won't bundle the DIB engine until
it makes it into Wine release sources. I have the same policy for any
other patch (including my own simple,
definitely-won't-hurt-anything-but-will-make-things-better patches) to
assist in keeping bugzilla *and AppDB* "clean". Do we really want the
users to submit AppDB posts that depend on who packaged the binaries?
This might not be that bad, since the individual test report indicates
their distribution. From my own observations of AppDB reports, when
users do things like winetricks or marking DLLs as native they tend to
include that in the report (or at least say something like "I used the
winetricks workarounds from the howto below")
Thanks,
Scott Ritchie
