Package: wine
Severity: serious
Version: 0.9.57-1
Tags: patch
Ok, here's your new bug (yes, with patch -- see below)
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:12:52PM +0100, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> Robert Millan skrev:
> >But you set #458013 as a blocker for this bug.
>
> Sure, but that doesn't actually make *this* bug RC. If some RC bug was
> blocked on this, *then* it might effectively be RC, but that's not the
> case. So there's a few RC bugs in ia32-libs that need fixing before I'll
> drop the hack, but if ia32-libs is fixed, I still don't really *have* to
> drop the hack to get into lenny, so this bug isn't RC. The blocker isn't
> here.
>
> >If #381341 is not the right bug
> >for that, we could have another, then?
>
> Well, if you want. File one if you think it'll be of use. I suppose
> you'd call it something like "can't build on amd64", and block it on the
> ia32-libs stuff?
>
> Note that there is actually something I *could* do to make wine
> available on amd64 without waiting for ia32-libs to be fixed. I could
> reverse the change I made in 0.9.49-1:
>
> * Also moved the generation of the amd64.tar.lzma.uu further up in the
> build process, before the dh_makeshlibs/dh_installdeb/dh_shlibdeps,
> so that maintainer scripts and dependencies should be generated a bit
> more like they would if the binaries were compiled directly on amd64.
>
> If I remember right, you yourself suggested that building stuff
> "natively" on amd64 would somehow encourage maintainers to add the
> missing 32-bit support to Debian. I added this change to approach that
> ideal, and look what happened: the wine packages have *never* built on
> amd64 in the 3-4 months since I did that.
>
> Reversing this, and thus taking wine further away from a natively-built
> amd64 package again, would make wine available on amd64 again (if the
> dep-wait is killed too, of course), but it would probably be a setback
> for your own theory...
>
> Still, it would be a solution to this "not updated on amd64" bug you
> might file (but far from a solution to the "drop amd64 hack" bug). What
> would you think?
Now that I think, you can easily disable that annoying check with:
--- wine-0.9.57.old/debian/rules 2008-03-25 16:17:32.000000000 +0100
+++ wine-0.9.57/debian/rules 2008-03-25 16:16:52.000000000 +0100
@@ -312,7 +312,7 @@
dh_makeshlibs -plibwine -n -V "libwine (= $(VERSION))"
bash debian/gendeps.sh $(patsubst build%,%,$(BUILDS))
- dh_shlibdeps -s -Llibwine -ldebian/libwine/usr/lib
+ dh_shlibdeps -s -Llibwine -ldebian/libwine/usr/lib --
--ignore-missing-info
bash debian/cleandeps.sh
# relaxed libwine dependencies for everyone else
--
Robert Millan
<GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call!
<DRM> What use is a phone call… if you are unable to speak?
(as seen on /.)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
