2009/5/12 Scott Ritchie <[email protected]>: > Henri Verbeet wrote: >> >> 2009/5/11 Scott Ritchie <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Henri Verbeet wrote: >>>> >>>> 2009/5/11 Joerg Mayer <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>> 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?
