On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, dnk wrote:
> On 11-Dec-08, at 2:26 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>
>> dnk wrote:
>>> Well it is not that I expected it to be done. I was just curious as
>>> in
>>> my searches I found some for openSuse, etc and "hoped" that maybe
>>> someone had rolled some.
>>>
>>
>> at one point in the past WinHQ's release process included rpms for
>> EL4/EL5 - is that no longer the case ? If not, perhaps they could do
>> with a hand in the release process itself ( which might be a good way
>> for you to get involved perhaps ? )
>>
>> Would you be able to investigate this a bit further ?
>
> They are still making RPM's, it is just that this one is "bleeding"
> edge, and not considered stable as of yet.
>
> It will come down the pipeline at some point.
RPMforge provides stable wine (1.0) packages in the normal repositories.
And we also provide test packages (1.1) from the test repositories.
In this case I only have 1.1.9 releases available from the test repository
because Wine does not announce new unstable releases on freshmeat. So
there is no practical way to monitor new releases. (We have more than 4000
packages, we cannot monitor individual mailinglists)
(In fact the latest stable release on freshmeat is 1.0, and not 1.0.1 :-/)
I am a firm believer to let upstream decide what is stable and is
unstable because they know much better. I often advice people asking me to
make available an unstable release in RPMforge to discuss with upstream to
see whether they can stabilize their unstable tree.
That said, I am building 1.1.10 packages right now but they will only
become available on saturday since I will miss the deadline for tomorrow.
Wine packages take a long time to build (often need 2 passes).
--
-- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
