Wine 1.2-rc1

berillions · 2010-05-28 14:29:52

Hello,

I saw that Wine 1.1.44 was out-of-date and is orphan now.
So, i took the PKGBUILD and i modified it for the new wine version. I modified the PKGBUILD for i686 and x86_64 architecture.
I tested and it's correct, i have not error during the installation or during the use.
But how to share these new packages?

Thanks (and sorry if my english is bad, i'm french)
Berillions,

wonder · 2010-05-28 14:32:12

i guess you can submit into aur as wine-rc or wine-unstable, if if doesn't exists.

in official repositoriesn we are packing only released stable versions with small exceptions.

tomk · 2010-05-28 14:34:41

You can set up your own repo, and add it to the "Unofficial User Repositories" page in the wiki.

Worth noting, however, that the Arch Gaming repo already has wine 1.2-rc1.

ngoonee · 2010-05-28 14:48:47

tomk wrote:

You can set up your own repo, and add it to the "Unofficial User Repositories" page in the wiki.
Worth nothing, however, that the Arch Gaming repo already has wine 1.2-rc1.

What do you have against the Arch Gaming people? =p

I'm sure you meant 'noting'.

tomk · 2010-05-28 20:53:03

LOL

Corrected, thanks.

bobdob · 2010-05-29 10:12:06

I looked in the arch gaming repo, but could only find bin32-wine and not wine.

Do they not package it or am I just looking in the wrong place?

ngoonee · 2010-05-30 01:22:27

If you're running 64-bit you use bin32-wine.

bobdob · 2010-05-30 10:24:32

ngoonee wrote:

If you're running 64-bit you use bin32-wine.

I know bin32-wine is for 64bit.

Its just to package bin32-wine, you need to have packaged the 32bit first. So I would of thought they'd have that package available as well.

ngoonee · 2010-05-30 13:16:59

Yeah, because duplicating packages available in the main repos is a good idea?

Ape · 2010-06-26 07:07:24

1.2rcx versions are at least as stable as 1.1.44 or other 1.1.x versions. In fact the wine developers are trying to make 1.2rc more stable than 1.1.x. So you should update the package.

ngoonee · 2010-06-26 08:25:41

Ape wrote:

So you should update the package.

Would you like fries with that?

Allan · 2010-06-26 08:34:56

We have noted the popularity of wine-1.2 and have decided that we will only be packaging it or our commercial branch which is soon to be announced. The current plan is to release it to the non-paid repos after a month or two.

Ape · 2010-06-26 09:33:26

What do you mean by these "commercial" and "non-paid" repos?

ngoonee · 2010-06-26 10:47:45

Do the words "sarcasm" and "wit" mean anything? Language skills are going down globally it seems...

Since my skills with the above are somewhat lacking I'll be blunt, no-one here works for you.

sas · 2010-06-26 12:57:30

Honestly, I don't understand why sometimes Arch developers (or power users) feel the need to be this aggressive towards "normal" users who express contrary opinions.

In this case:

1) user makes a proposition
2) developer declines, making it sound like it's a matter of whether it makes sense, not a matter of doing the work involved
3) user states reasons why it might make sense
4) developer respond somewhat aggressively, making it sound like suddenly it's a matter of doing the work
5) power user steps in, accusing user of expecting devs to do the work he tells them, and makes fun of language skills of (probably non-native-speaking) user

wtf?

Allan · 2010-06-26 13:28:10

I'm guessing I am #4...

I do not think I was being aggressive. I was just posting shit in response to yet another thread about wine/kernel26/vlc/... being out of date.

These thread never convince us to release a package earlier. And in fact, for wine there is nobody to convince as it does not have a maintainer. That means there is probably no dev cares about the package to update it when it is at an RC stage, whether or not the RC releases are the logical continuance of the 1.1.x branch. And the options for updating a package on your own are well documented (ABS + makepkg).

So the responses to any thread asking for an update will usually be a waste of time to read and should not be taken seriously.

ngoonee · 2010-06-27 10:53:47

sas wrote:

1) user makes a proposition
2) developer declines, making it sound like it's a matter of whether it makes sense, not a matter of doing the work involved
3) other user states reasons why it might make sense and proceeds to give orders to nobody in particular
4) Yet another user (and a developer) respond to the post with the respect it deserves, ie. not much
5) Same user as above explains things due to realization that previous user may not have understood

Fixed for you.

If you'll look up my location, I'm not native English-speaking either, hence I understand the need to explain things (like sarcasm) which may not get across to such an audience. My response may have been inappropriate if the original post can be considered appropriate, unfortunately it is just another example of users demanding such-and-such when mechanisms are already in place to convey (polite) requests.

I agree that elitism isn't an attractive trait in a forum. This thread isn't a good example of it though.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-05-28 14:29:52

Wine 1.2-rc1

#2 2010-05-28 14:32:12

Re: Wine 1.2-rc1

#3 2010-05-28 14:34:41

Re: Wine 1.2-rc1

#4 2010-05-28 14:48:47

Re: Wine 1.2-rc1

#5 2010-05-28 20:53:03

Re: Wine 1.2-rc1

#6 2010-05-29 10:12:06

Re: Wine 1.2-rc1

#7 2010-05-30 01:22:27

Re: Wine 1.2-rc1

#8 2010-05-30 10:24:32

Re: Wine 1.2-rc1

#9 2010-05-30 13:16:59

Re: Wine 1.2-rc1

#10 2010-06-26 07:07:24

Re: Wine 1.2-rc1

#11 2010-06-26 08:25:41

Re: Wine 1.2-rc1

#12 2010-06-26 08:34:56

Re: Wine 1.2-rc1

#13 2010-06-26 09:33:26

Re: Wine 1.2-rc1

#14 2010-06-26 10:47:45

Re: Wine 1.2-rc1

#15 2010-06-26 12:57:30

Re: Wine 1.2-rc1

#16 2010-06-26 13:28:10

Re: Wine 1.2-rc1

#17 2010-06-27 10:53:47

Re: Wine 1.2-rc1

Board footer